My father and i was talking about the end of time I was wanting to Know wen its going to hapen. The reason i ask is because i been geting some bad vibes and i fell its comeing soon. my instink is omost always right. nothen has really hapen to me of garde. my mother clams she has powers and i kind of belave her.people come to her for help.the reason i ask you is because thats youer department.

My husband is desperate to know where the Pope got those fetching red leather laofers.

They would pair so well with his ermine-trimmed drool bib. He simply must find a pair. Size 8.

Here is what I would ask the Pope:

Do you live in the woods?

Here is what I would ask the Pope:

Do you live in the woods?

I find it outrageous that the Washington Post editors of this web site are either so ignorant or evil that they allow Hitch to post blatant LIES. Hitchins in fact KNOWS full well this is a myth because it has been publicly pointed out to him for years now.

Bernard Cardinal Law is in NO WAY under criminal indictment, or so far as is publicly known, investigation. He waited to be formally cleared by MA AG Reilly of any criminal wrongdoing before he took his new faculty position in Rome; if at any time he were to be indicted, or a warrant sworn out for his arrest he would return to the US voluntarily. In fact, since he has left MA jurisdiction all statutes of limitations for any possible past culpability are frozen "forever".

The idea that he holds diplomatic immunity and is hiding out in the Vatican is an absurd LIE that various personal injury lawyers have been peddling to their lefty media accomplices in their multiple Church extortion schemes and the Post is liable for not removing the above offending Hitchins lie and correcting the record. MA prosecutors would have no problem making a big issue out of the thing, Law was thoroughly investigated, questioned by prosecutors, personal injury lawyers in countless videotaped depositions and by grand juries for a period of years.

For all the Sturm and Drang generated by the media over a period of half a dozen years NOT ONE US BISHOP has been indicted, let alone convicted, of "conspiracy" or "cover-up" or "collusion" or "complicity" or any other ominous sounding buzz words for what boils down to failure of personal powers of clairvoyance or pre-cognition of what a particular priest may or may not have ever done, past, present or future.

In fact even Catholic priests, YES EVEN PRIESTS are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence and the CATHOLIC CHURCH is NOT THE POLICE; they are neither obliged or equipped to investigate decades old allegations against menwith no prior criminal records that have been tossed over the transom at them anonymously with no evidence by grifters and career street hustlers and their slip/fall & whiplash lawyers who shamelessly drool over the collection plate, despite being supposedly too retarded to report the allegations to the police themselves, and now need lots of money for their alleged psychic "troubles".

As I have written before, I formally challenge the Washington Post Corporation, Disney-ABC, GE-NBC, Time-Warner, NewsCorp and the NYT- Globe to perform similar comprehensive psychometric and criminological surveys of their employee databases as the USCCB has done and continues with the priesthood. We would soon see how smug the 4th estate would end up in its judgement of the 1st. But alas corporate profit motives and fears of billion-dollar class action lawsuits (easily dwarfing the exceedingly generous settlements the Church has made for cases fundamentally without merit against men in many cases long dead) from their victims would preclude any such voluntary surveys I suspect, to hell with all YOUR victims. We know how the gameis played.

Church doctrines from first to last are built on a house of cards - from Jesus' divinity to the Holy Trinity to Papal Infallibility .... and many others in between and all designed to give both weight and consistency to the entire body of doctrinal metaphysics that comprises the belief system of both Catholics and Protestants - although Protestants draw the line here and there as regards what's really real, and what's metaphorical and symbolic.

Curiously, those very Protestant fundamentalists that don't buy into various of the Catholic doctrines are the ones that buy into the biblical literalism, lock, stock, and barrel. Go figure.

As an old, make that very old, altar boy, I left when I couldn't get a straight answer on the whys and wherefores of these various doctrinal conundrums, other than to say - 'there are deep mysteries, my boy'........well, that said it all for me.

On the other hand, if we start our New Reformation with the most recent and modern of Church doctrines, that of Papal Infallibility - and work backward, we might be able to straighten out this metaphysical miasma of supernatural ideas all the way back to the first swirlings - and shed some light on those ancient and ineffable 'dark' mysteries of our distant youth.

Will this make it through the blog screen?? I seriously doubt it ..........

Hey, it's way too late for John Paul II to do anything about Mahoney, Law, and the other perv-enablers. Benedict is captain of the ship now, so it's up to him. But I hear he's going to miss his White House birthday party.... must have been that late-night sleepover at BoysTown DC! And BTW, you ARE arrogant, Hitch. Stay that way! We need you.

Dear Pope:

Welcome-o to the USA-o!

I know you're busy touring and such, but I was wondering if you could do an old altar boy a little favor?

As you may have heard (God already knows all about it), we've been having some problems lately here on the On Faith blog. For no apparent reason our
posts are getting sequestered by the blog editors and we're having one heck of a time exploring the depths of faith. (I've considered the possibility that it's all actually just been a divinely-inspired test of the limits of faith, but that seems too diabolical even for God.) Accordingly, would it be too much to ask if you could add the sin of "Screwing Up A Blog" to the
list of sins? It wouldn't have to one of the deadly ones (they aren't being gay or anything) just something that would ensure an eternity of suffering would be nice. (To aid in your dicision I've been careful to include the word "Screwing".) As to the punishment, I'll leave that up to you pros ;).

Anyway, how about those hateful, spiteful, bitter ex-Catholics that post here!?! Grrrrr...

Your chum,

Neal::

Dear Paganplace -

The gremlins could be associated with the new formatting of the home page.

In any case, it would be nice if the blog owners deigned to post a note to their readers explaining WTH is going on.

I can't find any rhyme or reason to what posts are being cut, Mr. Mark. My understanding is they tried to change something to curtail spamming, and it just doesn't work right.

I'll try again.

Two major papers on opposite coasts have front page stories today about a certain visiting icon who is very saddened by certain bad things that were done to children by adults who wear a certain type of collar and work at said icon's certain non-profit venues.

I then pointed out that neither article bothered to mention the other certain personality who is being discussed at Length At Wapo's blog (you may decipher this person's name by reading only the uppercase letters in the 4 words preceding this parenthetical phrase).

It seems that certain media outlets continue to avoid discussing the so-called law in any way whatsoever.

Let's see if that makes it through.

Anyway, trying this bit again. No one is trying to 'force Catholics away from their beliefs,' there, Speed. In the wider world, you've got to respect others rather than presume an institution like *that* has some 'moral authority' over people who aren't harming anyone.

As for Pagan ways, well, they're not so hard to keep, of themselves. People tend to make it harder for us to live, but we find they aren't so darn *conflicted* as some other ways seem to be.

I don't know where you're claiming 'doubled taxes' from, ...I understand religious institutions are still getting tremendous tax *breaks* and even trying to get the state to pay the tuitions through vouchers and all.

Posts are still getting clipped, Speed. Longer answer got lost.

It's not like I haven't described my grievances about the Church in politics before, though.

My comments in this thread are being embargoed. Anyone surprised?

Terrils:

Most regular, diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty.

The discussion of the catholic church's aiding and abetting child rapists also brings up this question:

Do you know why they call it "organized religion"?

Because "organized crime" was already taken.

Someone call the pound - there's a rabid dog on the loose.

I dont get it, Pagan, who is attacking you?

Catholics have set beliefs, but no one is forced to be a Catholic...you can be anything you want.

More likely than not, it is seculars that try to force Catholics away from the beliefs - i.e. attacking hospitals, doubling taxing religious education, diatribes in the media and propaganda etc.

I am sure it is not easy sticking to pagan beliefs; however, I assure you being a Catholic is no cakewalk...

Oh, and, last I looked, Law was still under indictment in the Commonwealth. Gods know how many subpoenas. 'Wanted' in the sense of does anyone want to open that can, politically, that's different.

Let's also say that if you have been aggrieved by that institution and its management, they really don't mind attacking you wholesale if you aren't wanting to get back on your knees to them, no matter how badly you may have been hurt.

This is not hysteria, this is, 'Put it right and stay out of my life.'

Actually, much of how to put it right would be to stop opposing my civil and religious rights. An apology which doesn't insult my religion and person in the same breath would also salve things just a bit.

"In terms of intrusion in American politics and life, though, these always take a back seat to the legislation of personal morality when it comes to kingmaking, however. And this is the kind of thing that angers people."

Respectfully, the policy battle goes both ways and the idea that the secular public school system, for example, is "objective" in regards to respecting the ideas of faith and limited government is really something of a joke.

Also, there is increasing legislation trying to force Catholic hospitals to preform actions (such as abortion) that are against their beliefs.

If anyone should be held accountable for obstructive policies and invasive practices, it is uncle sam...who, btw, sees religion as an obstacle to control of the people.

Hence, comrade Hitchen's attention and attacks.

Speed, the current and past Popes' positions on war have really nothing for me to fault them on, don't get me wrong.

In terms of intrusion in American politics and life, though, these always take a back seat to the legislation of personal morality when it comes to kingmaking, however. And this is the kind of thing that angers people.

Also, where are the references that prove that Law is "wanted" by state authorities in MA????

Really, people, you seem to be hysterical....

So many baseless accusations and stereotypes on here it is really something.

This 2000 year of bastion of faith must really eat you up!

PaganP, the church was and is against the neocon agenda. It opposed the invasion and speaks out against the idea of "might is right"

Too bad the same couldn't be said about the neo-con, utopian Hitchens...who wouldn't he kill to spread "reason and humanity?"

Sadly ironic...

Given the extraordinary authority that the Vatican claimed, not to mention how cowed how many people were about trusting their system, only to find abusers shuffled around with impunity, ...this has hurt and angered a lot more people than one might on the face of it think. It really touched a lot of the Catholic community, and not in good ways.

Especially as the same authorities refuse to stop supporting Neocons to favor the Church's s ex agenda, politically, at the expense of things people really care about.

Still pretty raw to many, not the least those of them who were taught to try and 'make' their kids straight at 'any cost.'

Even 'diplomatic immunity,' J, can sometimes rightly be withdrawn by the 'state' (The Vatican) that it is derived from.

Why have they *not?*

My posts keep getting clipped, so I must keep it brief.

Mr. Mark,

Sanctuary? I don't know about that. It is beginning to sound more like asylum to me, as in political asylum, and now we have religious asylums for members of the clergy of religious entities - a "protected area" from persecution of the law of the land. We will have to look into possibilities of having "extradition treaties" between religious entities and the state to haul out errant, sinning and crime committing members of the clergy from being sheltered and protected by the religious entity. And enact new laws to stop religious entities from giving asylum to its errant members from the state's laws.

Bring us also to the question as to whether members of the clergy of any faith, specifically the Abrahamic faiths, as "diplomats" of God and for God, have "religious immunity" the same way diplomats have "diplomatic immunity" from persecution by the law of the land which are applied to us, mere civilians.

Cheers
"J"

BGONE asks:
"Ever hear of sanctuary? God provides it through His representatives."

Hmm? God supplies sanctuary to criminals, like those who aid and abet child rapists? How about murderers? Do god's representatives on Earth provide sanctuary to them as well?

Just asking.

B16 can appoint all of the Inquisitors he wants, so that they can falsely accuse children in Nigeria, or old women who own property, or women who are getting a little too uppity of being witches. I got news for him - the Witches will be fighting back. No more Burning Times!

D. RODRIGUEZ sez:
"The venom and spite and downright HATE I hear from atheists is what keeps me from EVER even thinking about their viewpoints."

Let me guess: you feel the same way about scientists (and anybody else, for that matter) who points out evidence that contradicts your fantasy world.

Here's the deal, DR - your fantasy world IS to be mocked, and why not? It's pure superstition married with fear and ignorance.

Let me ask you: do you pause to consider that you may upset a few people before you dismiss the existence of Zeus or Apollo or Odin or Thor? Do you feel that your saying that "Zeus was a mythical god who never existed" is a hateful, spiteful and venomous statement, or do you just consider it to be a fact that should be clear to everyone living on Earth in our enlightened times?

Well, that's the same way we atheists feel about ALL of the gods, including the Judeo-Xian versions. In fact, you probably agree with the atheists on 99% of the gods man has invented for himself over the ages, ie: you think they're all mythical. At the same time, you hold the belief that the god you worship is the one true god. That just happens to be a belief that is shared by every theist living on this planet RIGHT NOW who doesn't believe in your god but believes in their god.

There's absolutely nothing hateful or spiteful in saying that there is no evidence that any gods exist, that there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived and that to believe such nonsense is a form of self-imposed mass deception.

And here's the real kicker, DR: there is NO eternal comeuppance waiting the atheists after they die. No magic man, no right hand of god, no wailing and gnashing of teeth, no pure justice...none of the idiotic BS that your "holy books" tell you. It's all a fantastic lie, told by a group of scared little people who wouldn't make it out of 4th grade in the modern world. Yet, those are the MEn whose world view you choose to follow.

And you have the gaul to demand that atheists check their brains at the portal so you may continue to live in your fantasy world. Right.

Back at ya.

SPEED123:
"Mr. Mark - I am disappointed in your closed-mindedness..."

You'll get used to it...

"The venom and spite and downright HATE I hear from atheists is what keeps me from EVER even thinking about their viewpoints. [...] I am a very open-minded, educated, spiritual person and it offends me that there are people who would ridicule and belittle my faith, no even knowing anything about my morals and my lifestyle. "

The only knowledge required to ridicule you is that fact that you would type both of the above sentences in a single post with a straight face.

"I have NO patience for haters and liars. Most atheists I have ever encountered were one or the other."

Seems like a rather strong conclusion to reach without EVER even thinking about their viewpoints. In fact, it's starting to sound like you're a bit insecure in your faith.

"If you don't like it or want to believe it, keep it to yourself. Stop spreading your lies and your unhappiness. Just because you don't believe, doesn't give you the right to put down others who do. I am not trying to recruit you, so don't try to recruit me. "

Right, cause there's always atheists knocking on my door trying to convert me. Athiests are those clean-cut guys that ride around on bikes and wear thin ties, right?

"Bitter haters with pathetic little lives always want to drag happy people down into their abyss."

Wait... were you supposed to be one of the "happy people?"

Hey Terrils, Know-it-all- Would it make you feel better to know that I HAD indeed been sexually abused as a kid. Not by a priest, but what difference does that make? It happened. It was a terrible thing. It doesn't make me hate all men, so why should all Catholics have to be punished or all priests have to be put in the bad apple category because there were a few criminals.
Sexual perverts come in all religions, all races, all ethnic and socio-economic groups. Even some women are predators. So, take your comments and stick them. You have no right to preach at me or anyone else. You haven't walked in my shoes and you have no right to criticize my belief system or how I feel about sexual predators.

Mr. Christopher Hitchens,

We already know that you are an atheist and anti-theist just as we already know that the Pope is obviously Catholic.

What we also need to hear journalists ask, in a "level yet firm tones" (is the Pope to be spoken to as if he is a child?), what are the arrangements and agreements the US goverment has with religious entities on their internal affairs, and as to whether indiscretions, crimes or sins committed by members of the clergy is considered an internal matter.

Shelter him? Why whatever do you mean by such an absurd question? Is someone pursuing Bernard Cardinal Law?

Pickled limes are the funniest ones.

"I have NO patience for haters and liars. "

How's your patience for child molesters and those who aid and abet them? Fairly high, I'd wager, given your chosen faith and current defense of its officials.

"Before the universal institution of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church, the deaths of these entitled clerics often resulted in claims against their estates by widows and offspring."

Off the top of my head, this was the first explanation I came up with - the church wanted control of all monies present (vow of poverty) and future(vow of celibacy). Thanks for the confirmation.

Ratzinger and science: He just promised to install the "education" of 3000 new exorcists.

We live around the year 1500. Using computers to inform everybody about it.

And there is no shortage of witch hunters, looking at 123 and his ilk.

Ever hear of sanctuary? God provides it through His representatives.

Mr. Hitchens, perhaps you would like the current Pope to spend all his short time with President Bush discussing why John Paul II did not take more decisive action against Cardinal Law. However, I would prefer if the current Pope emphasized more the continuing unhappiness the Catholic Church has with USA involvement in Iraq. From the beginning, the Catholic Church has regarded it as a fiasco. Now, I know sexual abuse is a terrible thing and should be dealt with by criminal authorities; but what do you say to a war, engaged in on false pretext (so-called WMD's), in which, so far, at least 4000 Americans have been killed, and 40,000 Americans wounded (many with permanent disabilities). As for the number of Iraqi killed, some estimates are 100,000 or more. Not only that, the war continues, with President Bush threatening Iran. As for religious solace, it seems much of the USA going to war has been supported by Evangelical Christians on the right-wing. Therefore, your counsel, as Pope, could be very important as you talk with our President, and hopefully convince him to stop the madness!

You trivialize the potential suffering of abused kids, there, Mr. Rodriguez.

A lot of the 'angry atheists' rather resent the recent intrusions of religion into their public lives, often, ironically enough, tarring me with the same brush as the people who abused *me,*

...I certainly get angry, repeatedly, when the Church treats as a mere scandal, the very systems that teach support abuse of all kinds, in the course of trying to defame *my* religion and take away *my* civil rights because of *their* desire for a sense of control.

It's not 'hate,' but, yes, I do get angry. I want to enjoy *my* life, and *my religion,* and not be persecuted for my faith in the Gods that quietly got me through the 'hell' I was put through.

D. Rodriquez,

Shouldn't superstition be mocked?

People who derive "truth" from the absence of any evidence should be scorned. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it any more "true".

Most religious people portray themselves as being modest and having humility, but it shows extreme ARROGANCE to think that:

1. YOU have a special place in the universe
2. The creator of the universe watches YOU every moment
3. God sent his son as a human sacrifice to die for YOU! ... intrinsic sin (what a disgusting, violent idea)
4. YOU have telepathy and are able to transmit thoughts to God.
5. YOU can go to heaven and be immortal.

Its mind-boggling that billions of people can believe this nonsense without one shred of evidence.

The Pope personifies this arrogance that all religious people have...

Chris Hitchens has the right to ask the Poop (oops typo) anything he pleases. As for Hitchens retarded ideas about the Iraq war, what does that have to do with his Pope question? It's a different subject. Chris Hitchens is not an idiot, he knows he is wrong on the war, but if he changes his tune he won't get many pundit jobs!

The venom and spite and downright HATE I hear from atheists is what keeps me from EVER even thinking about their viewpoints. They are so CONSUMED with hate and rage against mommy or daddy or whatever other authority figure was too strict with them, or maybe was too harsh about religion, that they lose all credibility. I am a very open-minded, educated, spiritual person and it offends me that there are people who would ridicule and belittle my faith, no even knowing anything about my morals and my lifestyle.
I have NO patience for haters and liars. Most atheists I have ever encountered were one or the other. If you don't like it or want to believe it, keep it to yourself. Stop spreading your lies and your unhappiness. Just because you don't believe, doesn't give you the right to put down others who do. I am not trying to recruit you, so don't try to recruit me. Bitter haters with pathetic little lives always want to drag happy people down into their abyss.

Why should the Pope get more respect than any other leader of a tiny country?

My answer: Because to Catholic (which comprise a huge percentage of this nation) he is a spiritual symbol and a person of esteem.

He should get as much respect as the leader of Andorra, Luxumburg, or Monaco.
My answer: Because he has more than just a political role in this world. What about the Dalai Lama? Everyone falls all over him, what about that, Einstein?

Yet Bush is going to give him a 21-gun salute.

We all know Bush as is not the smartest person, and his treatment of Benedict shows us all (once more) what a gullible fool he is.
My answer: You are so full of yourself, aren't you? Are you just a rebel without a clue and you hate all authority figures? Did you dad disapprove of you or punish you too much? Poor Kenneth.

To all the Catholics (or evangelicals) out there, maybe one day you'll grow up and stop insisting there are invisible friends out there that you can talk to telepathically.

Grow up out of your insistence that celibate priests deserve any sort of respect.

Grow up and think for yourself, instead of believing all the garbage you were told when you were a child.

My Answer: You have issues. I suggest you go see a therapist.

Kenneth,

Since you attacked me and told me to grow up and what I should believe- I will answer your attack with this question- WHAT are you so afraid of?
WHO are YOU to tell me anything about what I believe? You don't know anything about me and yet, you tell me to grow up and abandon my faith. You, Sir, are just as repulsive as any religious leader you obviously despise. Go crawl back under your rock before you spread more of your negative disease. Sorry, Kill Joy- your atheist slander doesn't move me in the slightest. You are a sad little creature.

"You are indeed correct to state that the believers are unbelievable."

Mr. Mark - I am disappointed in your closed-mindedness...

why limit it to cardinal law? and, why limit it to sexual abuses? ratzinger should explain all the sinister acts of the catholic church in recent years at least if not throughout its sordid history.

Dear Secular -

You are indeed correct to state that the believers are unbelievable.

I sometimes wonder whether or not our species will ever grow up.

MARIA-TERESA Writes:

MR. HITCHENS, your quarrel is not with Benedict XVI.
It was John Paul II - who must have had his reasons - who called Cardinal Law to Rome and named him Arch-Priest of Santa Maria Maggiore.

Do you really think Benedict XVI would defy John Paul II's judgment on this matter in order to make a dramatic gesture that would be to his, Benedict's, benefit - at least, in the eyes of those who think that only some such dramatic gesture could begin to 'make up' for the sufferings of the victims of priest offenders?

Besides, what does any of us know about what penance and restitution John Paul II may have asked Cardinal Law to do in private - or that Cardinal Law himself may be doing to make up for his apparent sins of omission on this matter? Can any Catholic seriously think that John Paul II would name someone irredeemably evil and tainted to be Arch-Priest of the world's first and greatest Marian Basilica?

Grow up. In your mind and the minds of those like Dohessy of SNAP, this sexual abuse issue has become like the Holocaust. Because nothing anyone can ever say or do will ever undo all the evil and harm done, there will always be those like you who will not let the issue go away, no matter what is said or done about it.

You believers are just UNBELIEVABLE. The accused Mr. Law was and is a citizen of USA, why is he not and why did he not hand over the misbehaving priests to the law enforcement. Your rhetorical question that John Paul II would not appoint an evil doer to such exalted post is indeed laughable. As if this John Paul II knows what the just punishment should be. Why would we believe that this guy JPII should judge Law. That accuse Law should stand trial like any other accused criminal. This guy Ratzinger, if he has any balls or morals should say throw the scoundrel to the wolves, if he is innocent the wolves will not devour him, if he is then he deserves it. Dont you think this guy of so much faith does not have faith that his god would not mete out injustice to this accused Mr. Law?

Silence Dogood sez:

"The first and most important form of Justice is the Pure Justice that awaits Mr. Law...and each of us. It will be administered."

??? What are you talking about? Death? Is death the final form of justice?

Oh, no...wait...you mean that there's some supernatural being out there who is waiting for us to die so that they may administer the "pure justice" you're talking about.

And automobiles run on fairy dust...

Get real. It is ENTIRELY within mankind's power to administer justice. The laws are on the books! We need not wait for an IMAGINED form of justice to take place in the fairytale lands of religious belief. Justice can and should be administered NOW. Simply send Cardinal Law back to USA to stand trial.

"Pure justice awaits us." I'm still giggling over that one.

Good luck Chris.

If I remember correctly this pope, before becoming pope, sent a directive to the effect that all child molesting, raping activities had to be covered up to the utmost, whenever possible and shield the guilty and the church from anyone investigating.

If you molest a child and get caught you go to jail and become a registered sex offender, but if you are complicit in millions such offenses they call you Your Holiness.

It's the Vatican's own No Child's Behind Left Initiative.

D. Rodriguez wrote (referring to Hitchens):

You, Sir, are a nasty, bitter, hater. You don't deserve to ask the Pope, whom you refer to by his last name, anything.
-------------------------------------------------

Why should the Pope get more respect than any other leader of a tiny country?

He should get as much respect as the leader of Andorra, Luxumburg, or Monaco.

Yet Bush is going to give him a 21-gun salute.

We all know Bush as is not the smartest person, and his treatment of Benedict shows us all (once more) what a gullible fool he is.

To all the Catholics (or evangelicals) out there, maybe one day you'll grow up and stop insisting there are invisible friends out there that you can talk to telepathically.

Grow up out of your insistence that celibate priests deserve any sort of respect.

Grow up and think for yourself, instead of believing all the garbage you were told when you were a child.

One wonders where this information about "the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American children" comes from. Surely not police reports. We have statutes of limitations for a reason: proof and the recollection of witnesses deteriorates after time. Most likely, the numbers are in the TENS, not tens of thousands. Just as passengers riding on a bus involved in an accident find it profitable to strap on a neck brace and claim compensation for imagined "whiplash," I fear tens of thousands of opportunists (and their blood-sucking lawyers) found it might be profitable to claim they were raped 30 years ago and collect a quick cash settlement. Again, where is the proof? And why were not these alleged rapes reported shortly after they occurred? Rapes reported by women after physical evidence has deteriorated are laughed out of court. Why the double standard? Does someone have an agenda to destroy the Catholic Church financially?

I'd ask God the Father of the most evil trinity in history exactly what drove his thug predecessor's associations with the likes of Hitler.

How about explaining why a pope long ago wrote Matthew 24:7-- and nation shall rise against nation.

Was that not exactly what WWII was? Of course.

Crosses filling the entire globe. His sons in megachurches in the US trying to cause Armageddon via a nuclear holocaust.

Crusades, inquisitions, people dying all the time, kids getting raped by evil old men.

The bible is a fraud and the world knows this. Snakes do not talk. Christianity is just a hybrid of free masonry anyways-- 33 levels of that cult; 33 years that jesus lived.

People keep wondering about end times, using the book of Revelation.

In the name of common sense-- when it says, the mark of the beast is the mark of a man, and it is 666- then it obviously meant Nero. It was some nutcase describing in gory detail (probably sucking acid and blowing coke as well)-- what was happening to early Christian mythologists.

I say, they deserved it-- the RC Church as an institution is directly responsible for the greatest mass murders and crimes against humanity in human history; it is a death cult; full of trash, pomp, extravagance, and lies.

If this man Jesus could come back (he never existed though I don't think)-- he would take one of those 7 swords coming out of his impish mouth in those Revelations and spear the evil old bastard Ratzinger through the nuts.

But hey, at least the Pope wears a dunce cap... too bad he doesn't merely sit in his golden corner.

Thus much for the greatest selling piece of trash and death cult in human history.

Yes-- that is what I would ask this evil old bastard sausage pope; he has evil in his eyes.

I think that someone has the right to challenge Pope Benedict on Cardinal Law, but that person isn't Hitchens. One can easily argue that Hitchens shares responsibility for the suffering of millions of Iraqi men, women, and children due to his championing of the Iraq War.

If we are going to hold popes responsible for their sins, we should do the same for columnists.

Mr. Hutchins,

At the core of your pointed question lies a valid expectation for pure justice.

However, such a notion cleaves into at least three categories:

The first and most important form of Justice is the Pure Justice that awaits Mr. Law...and each of us. It will be administered.

The second form is civil, and people of faith know that civil/criminal law is flawed. Maybe statutes of limitations in this second category have passed, where they can still be used, I vote with you, if there is probable cause...let's go for it.

The third form, ecclesiastical, has probably already been dispensed and, not being a Catholic, I can only agree with you and your implications...but I would rather find Christ's positions on hypocrisy in the pages of the Bible than from any man.

Oh what a day that awaits each of us.

MR. HITCHENS, your quarrel is not with Benedict XVI.
It was John Paul II - who must have had his reasons - who called Cardinal Law to Rome and named him Arch-Priest of Santa Maria Maggiore.

Do you really think Benedict XVI would defy John Paul II's judgment on this matter in order to make a dramatic gesture that would be to his, Benedict's, benefit - at least, in the eyes of those who think that only some such dramatic gesture could begin to 'make up' for the sufferings of the victims of priest offenders?

Besides, what does any of us know about what penance and restitution John Paul II may have asked Cardinal Law to do in private - or that Cardinal Law himself may be doing to make up for his apparent sins of omission on this matter? Can any Catholic seriously think that John Paul II would name someone irredeemably evil and tainted to be Arch-Priest of the world's first and greatest Marian Basilica?

Grow up. In your mind and the minds of those like Dohessy of SNAP, this sexual abuse issue has become like the Holocaust. Because nothing anyone can ever say or do will ever undo all the evil and harm done, there will always be those like you who will not let the issue go away, no matter what is said or done about it.

here some great news they dont want to tell you bush lovers.

Sullivan points out that the military''s causality reports also exclude the "enormous number [of new veterans] flooding the VA," often with medical problems developed due to the war. A January report by the Department of Veterans Affairs showed 299,585 veterans who recently served in the Middle East had been treated by the VA since 2002. Forty percent (120,049) of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who sought care from the VA did so for mental health disorders.

thats a total americans hurt,injurd,sick,mental,maimed, ready america here it is 374,298 americans....

how many more americans has to get hurt,dead, or worst, how many more america

I know Cardinal Law is a bad man, Hitch, but you don't advance your cause when you claim that he "organized...the rape and torture..." I don't think anyone believes he set about organizing any priestly pedophilia (most of which, if you're honest you'll admit, did not involve either rape or torture). They all, including Law and Ratzie, deserve to be flogged in public; there's no need to indulge in hyperbole to make your point.

The entire Catholic Church (like all the other churches) is just a tax-free, money making business and anyone who thinks it is any more than that must be a descendent of someone who used to carve totem-poles or build pyramids.

Amen to that.

The Pope, like Dick Cheney, doesn't really care what people think. Mr. Hitchens interest in wasting time and energy asking the Pope questions would lead one to conclude that Hitchens is a bit more of a showman than the philosopher he claims to be....

You, Sir, are a nasty, bitter, hater. You don't deserve to ask the Pope, whom you refer to by his last name, anything. If you don't think he already knows and is going to address that issue, you are wrong. You aren't so clever that you are thinking of something he hasn't already thought of. I wish you would keep your stilted, biased, ignorant thoughts to yourself. I used to think you were a decent journalist until you turned into a hating, extremist. Why don't you do everyone a favor and retire.

Hitchens himself disgraced "his" "profession" by the ignorantly biased and exaggerated question he posed.
Why isn't Hitchens investigating the much-more-massive coverup of the sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of public school children by public school administrators and the National Education Association? That abuse scandal-in-waiting is estimated to have between 10 and 100 times the number of victims of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

Wow. Some people on this board really dislike Christopher Hitchens. We now see bush's adventure in Iraq labeled "Hitchens War." Interesting, as I doubt Hitch had an iota of influence in whether the war was launched and how it was prosecuted.

All of the Hitch bashing comes down to a lame attempt to discount his statement that the Pope should be asked why he is harboring Cardinal Law, as if heaping scorn on Hitch for his stand on Iraq somehow delegitimizes his stance on Law. It doesn't.

Hitch brings up a relevant issue that the media is collectively ignoring, including - for the most part - this blog.

How about it, Jon and Sally? Should Benedict explain why he is harboring a man who aided and abetted child abusers, or does he get a pass?

I have two questions for the Pope.
1. Should the Pope or the Vatican insert itself into the American presidential election as it did in the last one?

2. Is for BOTH the Pope and Mr. Hitchens (who might concern himself with the conduct of the leader of the free world in the same manner as he has with the Pope?)

Might he ask weekly in his column, why he and the Pope support Mr. Bush who has organized, supported and condoned the slaughter of over a million Iraqis and Americans and caused the displacement of over five million Iraqis who are now refugees. And aided and abetted in the slaughter of well over 1,000 innocent and defenseless Lebanese?

Is there something controversial about Hitchens statement. The Catholic Church has much to account for in this matter. Why should a man who is head of this institution which he thinks is the only true religion not sharply questioned on this matter.

"the man who organized and excuse the rape of tens of thousands of American children"
Professor Hitchens does himself and his reputation as an intellectual a grave disservice when he descends into irratonal polemics rather than ask probing and accurate questions. There is a serious problem with the Vatican's giving the disgraced Cardinal a comfortable sinecure in a foreign country after his betrayal of his oversight responsibilities, but to say that the Cardinal "organized" the sexual abuse of each of the far too many victims of the priest pedophilia scandal is a gross overstatement unworthy of a man with the intellectual pretenses of Dr. Hitchens. Academics must stay to objective description and impartial inquiry if they are to be taken seriously. Professor Hitchens does not deserve to be so taken. the very tone of this comment indicates that Professor Hitchens is nothing more than the most gross of bigots who is using the pain of the very victims for whom he would pretend to speak to make disparging remarks about religon in general and Catholicism in particular.

I would ask him if he read the book:

"Money,Murder,and the Mafia: The Vatican Exposed" by Paul L. Williams,Phd.

Hmmmmmmm??

Here's what I'd like to ask, of all the Iraqi children who have died in Hitchens' war:

Would you rather have been born to be an Iraqi child, and died a fiery death, as you did to help serve the interests of the United States, or born an American child and have been occasionally boned up the rectum by a robed representative of the Catholic church and then live off your million-dollar settlement?

amen.

To Mr. Hitchens: Amen.

All these attacks on the messenger and hardly any mention of the sexual abuse of INNOCENT, TRUSTING CHILDREN.
Religion indeed.
Thank-you, Mr. Hitchens.
Thank-you

And, I didn't mean 'three or four thousand,' I meant 'three or four.'

Can you excuse that?

Can you take from such a man claims that all manner of people are 'objectively disordered,' ...as long as only a few were tortured or raped in the name of such teachings?

Is that few enough for you to take the word of such a man on the 'infallibility' of his religion when he teaches you to scorn others?

How few, or how many, does it take for you to realize no one claiming a 'divine kingdom' has *any* right to do or say any such things?

I dunno about tens of thousands, Anonymous.

Is three or four enough?

I completely agree. How can WE allow a holy man to evade these questions an still face his won conscience.

If Cardinal Law indeed " . . . organized . . . the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American children" then prosecute him. As a Catholic I'd welcome such a trial in order to bring out the truth.

Either Cardinal Law is complicit in the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American children and needs to be behind bars or Christopher Hitchens is just engaging in another round of his serial demagoguery -- which needs to be added to his already sordid record along with such gems as his pro-Irag-invasion blathering.

If Christopher Hitchens were serious about his allegations he'd be rallying for criminal prosecution rather than stooping once again to the demagogue's ever preferred venue for trial, the kangaroo court and its latest manifestation, the internet .

Curious:

It's probably no accident that the gradual institution of clerical celibacy coincided with the increase in church-owned property and benefices. Benefices, though rare now, were financial endowments frequently allocated to individual clerics and intended for their exclusive use. Before the universal institution of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church, the deaths of these entitled clerics often resulted in claims against their estates by widows and offspring. If a cleric had male descendants who were also clerics, a benefice could conceivably be held in the same family for generations. [1]

Additionally, on a more practical level and applicable even to parishes without such endowments, two (or three or more) cannot live as cheaply as one.

As always...follow the pecunia.

Pam:

^5!

---------------

[1] New Advent Online Catholic Encyclopedia: Articles on "Celibacy of the Clergy" and "Benefices".

The Roman Catholic Church is a political and financial institution and as such will spin as it sees fit. How can you argue with God ,has always been their sheild whether Inquisitions or Crusades. The decision not to allow priests to marry was a financial one as inheritance issues would arise with the offspring of clergy and vast properties the Church owned and still does,large tracts of Manhattan all tax free. The decision to ban meat eating on fridays was a finacial one as the fishing industry provided an incentive to the church to do it ,that's why there was a picture of a fish on catholic calendars. There are many well intentioned clergy who do good works helping the needy which was the main message of Christ, it's just the upper echelons in limosuines and palaces give the wrong image. The pope is here to gather funds for all the sexual abuse caes caused by their failure to let priests marry making it a refuge for gays for centuries.

Like this man can comment on morality?!

Ha!

Hitchens is a acolyte of Trotsky - the man responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox peoples in Russia when he was commander of the Red Army.

And there is that little thing called the IRAQ WAR - of which Hitchens has been an unapologetic PROPAGANDIST.

Hitchens claims to be a humanitarian; however, he is just about the furtherest thing from it...

Nirpinder Singh said:

I do not think that the Pope could address the issue of Child Abuse by Priests without delving into the reason for celicacy imposed on the Priests by the Church.
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Singh,
I wonder if the reason for imposing celibacy on the Church staff around 1100AD was to impose control over them, and us. And to make them different. It's a matter of cohesion among their own ranks, plus superiority over us poor normal mortals who need sex. It probably also rendered priests' lives less distracted by family concerns. And I suspect it was an attempt to attract those who wanted to live separate, live different, perhaps even to attract homosexuals.

And it was the beginning of their attempt at reproductive control over parishioners. If they couldn't impose reproductive control over their own staff, how could they achieve it over others?

Amen!!!!

He is wanted by US law enforcement. Why are you hiding him?

Spot on, bro! As usual you have articulated the travesty exactly. Now go eat your beagle.

Yeah, Chris, everyone knows people who were born Jewish should shut up and "eat a beagle" They teach this in Catechism.

Where is "Father" Aguilar?

It's "forgiveness", Mr. Hitchens. Catholics seem to think no matter what you do, the Church cannot stop you or censor you, or even remind you of it. They protect sinners.

Humanity, Joseph.

Christopher, yes, yes, I know, religion can be linked to all kinds of bad things now and in the past. Christopher, man seems capable of all kinds of atrocious behavior. But does religion mitigate or exacerbate this? I know you feel it is the latter. But, what do you have instead? Do you think the wonders of DNA or sociobiology are enough to supplant the Catholic Church or all of religion? A scientist can find a cure for cancer or build a better nuclear weapon. Both are justifiable, who is to guide him? Now, what do you think you bring to the table? What do you think you really want to ask the Pope?

Bob Bailey:

Pagans aren't atheists.

I've seen two of William Craig's debates. If he's the best you and the Discovery Institute has to offer, I see bright days ahead for the non-believing crowd. To paraphrase Craig on why he believes in the resurrection of Jesus: "There are no plausible naturalistic explanations for the empty tomb". As an admitted non-scientist and intellectual lightweight, even *I* can come up with several plausible naturalistic explanations for an empty tomb. As to his cosmological arguments for the existence of his god: logical back flips do not a specific deity make. But hey, good luck with that.

oh jezus mother maria chris you are so right ,lets ask him for all the detail and than show him how religion poisons everything it touches and next ask him why in hell does he wears those nelly full drag outfits made for a san francisco dragqueen!!

New filters. Worse Than before.

This is an important question and a great imbarassment to the church.

Good question but it won't be asked.

" homosapiens:

"Sometimes the right question is asked by the wrong person. Would anyone have any interest in writing (or reading) a column on "What I'd ask Christopher Hitchens"?"

Prolly not. I don't see him wearing no crowns.

" Rob Bailey:

"Everybody's Pope-bashing and religion-bashing here...oh, wait, it's a Washington Post blog. What was I thinking?"

That institutionalized abuse is deniable? Heck, it took the idea it was 'gay' abuse for anone to even notice at all, let's forget about the regular kind that just involves beatings and emotional abuse.

"A representative sample of the public? THATS funny. Just your usual lonely and miserable atheists here I see--mostly talking to one another. You guys are so funny!! Keep up the entertainment!"

So glad you're entertained, ye who thinks himself mighty and righteous. Hope it was all good for *something,* after all.

"I just got back from church. Blessings to all you pagans! May the scales be removed from your eyes!"

Careful what you pray for. You might not like how you look through those eyes.

A New Earth – Excerpt 2

By Eckhart Tolle [Continued]//

Spirituality and Religion //

What is the role of the established religions in the arising of the new consciousness? Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and religion. They realize that having a belief system, a set of thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth, does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more that you make your thoughts, your beliefs, into your identity, the more cut off you are to the spiritual dimension within yourself. Many religious people are stuck at that level. //

The new spirituality, the transformation of consciousness, is arising to a large extent outside the structures of the existing institutionalized religions. This large scale opening of spirituality outside of the religious structures is an entirely new development. In the past, this would have been inconceivable, especially in the west, the most mind-dominated of all cultures, where the Christian church had a virtual franchise on spirituality. //

Partly as a result of the spiritual teachings that have arisen outside the established religions, but also due to an influx of the ancient eastern wisdom teachings, a growing number of followers of traditional religions are able to let go of form, dogma, and rigid belief systems and discover the original depth that is hidden within their own spiritual tradition at the same time that they discover the depths within themselves… //

Some religious institutions will be open to the new consciousness. Others will harden their doctrinal positions and become part of all those other manmade structures through which the collective ego will defend itself and fight back. Some churches, sects, cults, or religious movements are basically collective egoist entities as rigidly identified with their mental positions as the followers of any political ideology which is closed to any alternative interpretation of reality. //

But the ego is destined to dissolve, and all its ossified structures, whether they be religious or other institutions, corporations or governments will disintegrate from within, no matter how deeply entrenched they appear to be. The most rigid structures, the most impervious to change will collapse first. This has already happened in the case of Soviet communism. How deeply entrenched, how solid and monolithic it appeared. And yet within a few years it completely collapsed from within. No one foresaw this; all were taken by surprise. There are many more such surprises in store for us.

[Why is this of such interest to me? Because this new awakening, or enlightenment is all that will save the human race. From the seemingly intractable Arab/Israeli conflict to the seemingly insolvable problems such as population explosion and resulting global warming and food/water/energy shortages, it will take a new awakening to resolve these problems.]

As head of an organized crime syndicate, isn't it part of his job to keep his lieutenants out of jail? They need to be taxed and held accountable for their centuries-long reign of terror.

As head of an organized crime syndicate, isn't it part of his job to keep his lieutenants out of jail? They need to be taxed and held accountable for the centuries-long reign of terror.

I do not think that the Pope could address the issue of Child Abuse by Priests without delving into the reason for celicacy imposed on the Priests by the Church. The major difference that is obvious to the lay person between Priests of the Catholic and Protestant Faiths is that the former wear vestments and ostensibly adhere to celibacy.
Having studied in a Catholic School in India I can vouch for the fact that Celibacy of Priests and Nuns was considered strange by all of us who practised various faiths. We the students did not take part in Church Service so we were not aware of the ecclesiastical reason for celibacy. Much as we respected our teachers we could not help but wonder what made them adhere to this strange practice.
Incidents of the type that happened in Boston parishes have not been reported in India. This is not to say that the problem does not exist here. Perhaps we are just not confident enough to discuss this openly as yet.

Without secular government, Liberty would become extinct.
This is not in any way an argument for atheism; rather it is an argument for true Liberty.
Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jewish religion love to toss around the words secular and atheist as if they are the same thing. This is the height of idiocracy and ignorance. Secularism is a style of government. Atheism is a system of thought or belief in the lack of belief in any higher power or God. Secularism is the separation of God and the State or God and government. Atheists do not separate anything; it is the absolute rejection of any belief in God. Secularism is a methodology, a system, or a form of governance. Secular government separates religion, church, or God from government in order to protect all thought, belief, and religion. The government must remain secular so that Christians can continue to believe as they see fit and the sane applies to Muslims Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists or Agnostics, any belief. Secular government is not atheistic government; rather it is the removal of religion from government so that all the other rights that we enjoy may exist. Without secular government there would be no free speech, free thought, free expression, free belief (freedom of religion), or even the ability to have fair due process.
Without secular government and the protection of our separation of church and state we will eventually evolve into a Theocracy. When secular government goes the way of the Dinosaurs we loose religious freedom. (Many Christians feel that religious freedom means the freedom of Christianity and nothing else) The dominant religion will always take the positions of power and thus enforce its will or faith (theology) upon the entire population if the state gives up on the restriction in the constitution of government promotion of religion and the establishment of any state religion. Many Christians and Muslims or Jewish followers feel that all other religions are not real, true, or correct versions of faith, which denotes all other religions to the classification of non-religion. This is a sad reality when you converse with religious people you will find that the main three religions share this false religion dogma. The sick fact that all three use terms like heathen, apostate, blasphemer, and non-believer which is the same as infidel.

JLTID said ... "yes there are republican party idiots".

Well, if there are "republican party idiots", I suspect that you are a member in good standing, JLTID.

Someone should ask the pope if he knows how many of the tens of thousands of children who die each day around the world of starvation, malnutrion, and diseases are the result of the Church's opposition to birth control policies which he could change, and if he should not be charged for crimes against humanity.

Everybody's Pope-bashing and religion-bashing here...oh, wait, it's a Washington Post blog. What was I thinking? A representative sample of the public? THATS funny. Just your usual lonely and miserable atheists here I see--mostly talking to one another. You guys are so funny!! Keep up the entertainment!

I just got back from church. Blessings to all you pagans! May the scales be removed from your eyes!

And Hitchens, when are you going to be brave enough to debate William Lane Craig??

reference DocChuck remarks.......Hitchens asked a pertinent question and this democrat party idiot(idiot may be redundant) used it as a platform to attack Bush and Cheney...how perfectly sophmorphic the democratic party activists responses have become. (yes there are republican party idiots)

An excellent question. Cardinal Law's signature is on my undergraduate diploma. I've always been tempted to send it back and ask for a diploma with some law-abiding citizen's signature on it instead of his.

Your popeship . . . would you PLEASE send two of your best exorcists to the White House ASAP . . . one for Dubya and one for Cheney.

Thank you, your eminence.

My question to Mr Hitchins, who, unlike my pope, I admire:

What moral compass do YOU use to decide that sex with those under a certain age is actually wrong?

Could it be that your belief system in this regard simply coasts on the backdraft of thousands of years of religious instruction that informs our environment?

In fact, do you really believe it is wrong, or are you simply pleased to point out the hypocritical behavior of others?

Why could sex with minors not be a simple lifestyle choice, as it was BCE?

Once every decade or so, Christopher Hitchins is absolutely right. This is his correct moment in this decade. I absolutely agree with every word in this post.

All religious leaders have the same answer "Do as my invisible friend says, or I'll kill you"

Writing as one of those 10,000 you mention, allow me to say why this question is so important.
For too long the focus of the child sexual abuse scandal has been on the offending priests - the perps in police parlance. Many, if not most, of these men have escaped that so-called long arm of the law because of the actions of local bishops, cardinals and ultimately (it seems now) the pope himself.
These men seemed to believe that they indeed are princes, who live in a sort of sultanate beyond all legal jusrisdictions except of their own making.
It is only when the first one of these men is arrested, read his rights, handcuffed, and then forced to make that dreaded "perp walk" that we will see radical change in the way they think about their roles in the horrifying systematic abuse of innocent children that occurred on their watch - indeed could not have occurred otherwise.
It is a good question, Mr. Hitchens, but as you rightfully say, it is merely the first question.

Christopher Hitchens is ABSOLUTELY right! If the church cannot deal appropriately with such obvious darkness under its own control - they have no credibility for demanding other organizations do so.

Needless to say I'll be very surprised if any such question is asked. Worse, the press will consistently treat the Pope as an authority on moral matters. Those of us who know a little about the history of this institution know better.

Mr. Hitchens is absolutely right.

Are you a hypocrite to raise the issue of pedofilia and sex crimes within the Roman Catholic church but dismiss your support of mass murder in Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including children have died and over 4,000 American troops? Are you comfortable with your apparent disregard for the lack of proportionality and discrimination in this unjust war?

Whatever Christopher Hitchens may be accused of, understatement will never make the list. The horror of sexual abuse of children by clergy appalls us all, but an unsupported charge of "tens of thousands of American children" as victims of Cardinal Law's malfeasance can lead only to added numbers of those who shrug and turn away.

Many Catholics were offended by seeing Law presiding so conspicuously over both the funeral of JPII and the installation of Benedict. For fifty years the Church's sexual preoccupation have drowned out its radical and essential teachings on social justice - perhaps not surprising, dominated as it has been by psychologically immature but intellectually shrewd men whose last real contact with ordinary families was in their adolesence (many were the favored child in families proud to produce a priest). JPI & II were capable of expressing this radical teaching of serving the least among us - but the voice for the poor always gets drowned out by proccupation with genitalia, by the people, popes, and certainly the press. The Real Church teaches against abortion because it teaches protection of the vulnerable; teaches agains pre-emptive war because the vulnerable always suffer; teaches service to the poor because wealth is derived from commonly owned resources....

But sex became more compelling, and warped personalities were given moral authority and then sexual opportunity. It's time for Benedict to make Law an example of the Church's emphasis on justice before he makes him an example of its emphasis on mercy and forgiveness.

Hitchens is right. Instead of being drummed out of the ministry and into retirement, Law is transferred to the Vatican to live out his remaining years in a cushy post. However the blame really lies with John Paul II whose attitude that it was solely a an American problem to be handled by the U.S. bishops, let this enormous problem fester for years. One prelate that still flies under the radar is Cardinal Egan of New York, who as Archbishop of Bridgeport, Ct.
engaged in the same coverup and obsfucation as Law did in Boston. The church's response has been
monetary payoffs should mitigate most of the damage, with half hearted apologies to follow. It is and is still and abject disgrace.

. engaged in and nurtured the typical non response to these terrible trangressions like Law did in Boston. It is an abject disgrace. Monetary payoffs will soothe the offended seems to be the Church's answer.

I agree. There needs to be an actual indepth accounting by the chief chieftain.

Eckhart Tolle wrote "Man made god in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, the un-nameable was reduced to a mental idol that you must believe in and worship as my god or our god. "

It's clear the man is lost and don't have a personal experience of the True God. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me." (Jn 14:6)

He had searched MANY WAYS but sadly, he wasn't succesful to find the the Only Way.

Ask Eckhart what is the near future or the big events coming soon. Im 100 percent sure he doesn't know but I know. The main difference is that I found the true God ,but clearly, he did NOT.

I would also ask ratzinger what were the terms of the deal whereby he got to be pope and john paul got to be canonized and eventually made a saint?

Was Bernard 'the fugitive" law part of the deal?

And,fellow posters who would like the Law issue to just go away,it won't. This is not a 'dead' issue until Law is brought to justice.Then it would be beating(not shooting) a dead horse, not before.

Render to Ceasar, etc,etc

For Catholics who attend Mass at least once a month, an overwhelming majority of the young and older generation believe Christ is present in the Eucharist.

This shows the ignorance of the Catholic faith. Christ was not referring to the literal bread. It is the word of God, the Bible, that transforms the person. The bread will feed the body but the Word of God will feed the soul.

The Catholic Church is an institution that SPREADS THE IGNORANCE.

Christ uses figures of speech but idiots don't get it.

Patrick:

--"The only consistent trait Mr. Hitchens has exhibited so far is a mendacious malevolence towards the true and sacred..."

Quoting Christopher Hitchens's opinions on the Iraq war [sic], right or wrong, would not only seem to be irrelevant to the topic, but even if barking mad would not constitute lying. If you are referring to his opinions on god(s) and religions, then it seems only fair that you provide some quotes on those topics which demonstrate "consistent", conscious attempts at deception. If you cannot, perhaps you might consider reserving that accusation for those who truly deserve it, like...say...Bernard Law and *his* enablers.

This sounds like a legitimate question to ask the Pope. Frankly, I had forgotten a lot of the details surrounding this matter. But if anyone can do it, Christopher Hitchens won't pull any punches. Beatbick@verizon.net

"It must be obvious to anyone who can think at all that the charges against the Hussein regime are, as concerns arsenals of genocidal weaponry, true."

"Will an Iraq war make our Al Qaeda problem worse? Not likely."

"(Saddam Hussein is) perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser.”

-- Christopher Hitchens

What I'd like to ask Christopher Hitchens is why anyone should trust his judgment and acuity just now? What's changed?

The only consistent trait Mr. Hitchens has exhibited so far is a mendacious malevolence towards the true and sacred, as if he's the reincarnation of Caligula in an era in which lions and crucifixions are no longer options.

Mr. Hitchens is right. Absolutely 100% correct. As a Christian I demand those answers he rightfully asks the media to address. The abuse and horror those children went through is beyond anything anyone of you posters would ever understand, thank God..Regardless of what Mr. Hitchens personal beliefs are, as a journalist, he is spot on.

I personally think that the Vatican has way too much power without the accountability, however Mr. Hitchens is one bitter, negative soul. He points out flaws and criticizes everything, yet he never provides proposed solutions to all of the ills that he sees. He still believes in the Iraq War but criticizes the implementation. He can't bring himself to admit he was wrong... But that's what you can do when you have a forum to throw bombs and run...

Summary of the above criticisms of Hitchens:
1) He supported the war! He's so bad! (Off-topic, ducking the issue at hand.)
2) I don't like him! He drinks! (Off-topic, ducking the issue at hand.)
3) He's a bigot for criticizing an institution that systematically protected child molesters and regularly provided them with fresh pools of victims! (Obscenely idiotic.)

What's missing from virtually of the postings by the defenders of the Church is this:
"My Church systematically protected men who were sexual predators of children. The members of the Church hierarchy were supposedly morally enlightened men, but they instead behaved as if they were purely evil. I can imagine no greater violation of trust and responsibility. Every one of them who concealed these crimes (including the Pope) deserves to be executed."

I'm sure their magical, invisible friend was pleased with the way they protected his wise and moral institution....

Enjoy your weekly cannibalism, Catholics! (That IS what transsubstantiation is all about, no?)

ya know mr. hitchens... i'm not happy with what happened with bernard law, but let's stop shooting the dead horse. enough already.

Also ask him why God would create someone like me, a gay man, and then have his spokesman (the pope) tell me that I am sinning when I live my life as a gay man. It's a message that has driven all of my friends away from the catholic church's bigotry against gays.

Hear hear.

GENE DOUGLAS writes:
"I'm a little behind on the news, I guess. I never realized he was giving sanctuary to a fugitive in the Vatican."

That's not really your fault. The press barely mentioned this story when it broke and hasn't said a peep since.

The press is loathe to cover anything that puts religion - especially a MAJOR religion - in a bad light. Oh, sure, they'll cover any polygamy story like a carnival, and they'll loop Obama's minister talkin' trash and run it for weeks, but a CATHOLIC BISHOP who COVERED UP CHILD ABUSE being done by the PRIESTS UNDER HIS CHARGE? Nope, they ain't gonna cover that...and, they ain't gonna cover the FACT that POPE JOHN II GAVE THIS CHILD-ABUSE ENABLER SANCTUARY IN THE VATICAN, and that HIS SUCCESSOR IS CONTINUING THE CRIME.

By not covering this story, the Catholic apologists on this board - and everywhere else, for that matter - are emboldened to act shocked - SHOCKED! - that people have a memory beyond McCain's last ignorant statement about foreign policy. People like Christopher Hitchens - who is absolutely right to be outraged by THE VATICAN AND THE POPE CONTINUING TO HARBOR A BISHOP WHO ENABLED CHILD ABUSERS FOR DECADES - is called a drunk and a Catholic hater, and is ridiculed for demanding accountability from THE CHURCH for CRIMES that any decent person would find abhorrent.

But in the sleazy world the the religious, such crimes aren't spoken of and justice is not served, because Jeebus and god and who the f**k else couldn't POSSIBLY allow such things to happen...and even if they did, it's only because Jeebus said those naughty priests will get theirs in heaven...three Hail Mary's and a package of Pop Rocks should do it.

Yes, we're all supposed to greet The Pope with open arms, when - in fact - his greeting should express our collective outrage at his HARBORING A MAN WHO ENABLED CHILD ABUSERS, and that greeting should make the recent protests that greeted the arrival of the Olympic Torch look like a trip to the candy store.

But it won't, because religion - and the people who occupy the highest stations within them - are OFF LIMITS to serious discussion...and to the norms to which the rest of the civilized world subscribes. They get a special carve out from our ethics and morals that we don't give to the guy running the local dry cleaning business. And why? Why, because 85% of us believe in the fantasy world of gods and dead people coming back to life, and because we embrace the superstitions and the rituals that surround the fantasies, and because we're either too SCARED or too STUPID to grow up and act like the reason-enabled creatures we have evolved to become.

OK, I'm done.

The Anonymous post to Daniel M. Mahoney: was mine.

Daniel M. Mahoney:

--"Cardinal Law did not "organize" the rape and torture of "tens of thousands" of Americn Children. [...] The use by Hitchens of the word "organize" is very misleading and conveighs a message that distorts facts which are bad enough when reported accurately. [...]Further, from the records I have observed, some 14,000 claims of molestation have been made. Truly a terrible number, but far from "tens of thousands" And, as I recall, the time span that covers these claims goes back to the 1950s. [...] But I do believe that in defense of the thousands of wonderful priests who have served in the United States since 1950, the least we can do (especially scholars who know better) is to keep their comments as close to the known facts as possible."

I agree with you that Hitchens's use of the word "organize" probably exaggerates Law's culpability. On the other hand and in view of the (possibly continuing) cover-up that went on for decades I can also see how people could logically come to that conclusion, and worse. As the brother of a Catholic priest, I also agree that a lot of good men are unfairly paying for the sins of others.

I do not agree, however, that 14,000 documented cases is very far off the "tens of thousands" Hitchens references. If molestations by clerics are as under-reported as other types, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the 6,000 gap in cases could be made up pretty easily.

In addition, according to my understanding of Catholic theology, liability for sins such as these do not end with the first molestation victim. To the extent that any of these victims in turn molested other people, as experience teaches happens, then those people, and the people molested by *them* and so on and so on, could also reasonably be counted as "victims". When you add in the people who suffered in *any* way due to the psychological trauma of the molestation victims then the numbers begin to get truly staggering.

Until people feel they have *all* the information on this issue, speculation, wild and otherwise, seems inescapable. For as long as the Vatican gives sanctuary to a man with a lot of that information, it is responsible for that speculation.

I would like to ask Comrade Hitchens how he could intellectually justify to himself the tens of millions that were sacrificed on the altar of historical materialism and "scientific" socialism?

For those attacking Hitchins for asking a legitimate question, just ask yourselves why the Catholic Church continues to lose parishioners in droves. To which the answer to that is really quite simple if you just open your eyes and think . . .

I'm a little behind on the news, I guess. I never realized he was giving sanctuary to a fugitive in the Vatican.

I also didn't realize the bishops who covered up for child molesters had not been disciplined. They did more than just take them out of harm's way, they transferred them to other posts where they could do it again. When more reports came in, they just did it again, and then again, and then again.

They're at least as bad as the perpetrators themselves. He doesn't need to go to Boston, because it didn't just happen in Boston. He needs to clean his own house. If he doesn't do so, he doesn't really care, and all his talk of "healing" is just another cover-up.

Anyone who blows off this Hitchens question and instead attacks Hitchens is at the base of what's so amoral about the Catholic bosses in Vatican City. It defies ethical humanity that the rulers of the Catholic nation knew of the abuse of thousands of children and then covered it up. Any of you on this list who criticize someone who would pose the question are obviously exactly what makes the Catholic Church the fine upstanding organization it is. Amen, amen.

Why is no lay person, man or woman, who heads up one single congregation (department) in the Vatican? Didn't Vatican II call for greater lay participation in the affairs of the Church? Is there any Church law that forbids lay leadership in the congregations?

John Paul II turned the Church away from the thrust of Vatican II. Will the Pope return to the spirit of Vatican II?

John Paul II grew up in and lived nearly his entire life in Poland under stern undemocratic rule, as that country was ruled for 1,000 years,and his tenure as Pope reflected his lack of understanding about democratic rules of rule. Will Benedict turn more outward and less dictatorial than his predecessor?

The U.S. church is changing. Latinos will lead it in new directions, including geographically. That's because almost three in four Latino Catholics live in the South and the West, shifting the center of the U.S. church from the Northeast.

They've succeeded in making the Northeast very liberal. Now they target the South and the West. They won't stop until this nation become all liberal and thanks to them if God renders His judgment on this nation. And He will. Just wait.

Ray Flynn, former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican, who loves the idea of papal hierarchy because it means "people aren't out there freelancing, talking about their opinion of what the faith teaches. It makes us more unified."

The faith of this church revolves around personality and not focused on the Bible which is the word of God. No personal relationship with Christ. This church is the Devil's religion.

Some who don't respect the pope as much has other reasons which are clearly against Biblical doctrines. This Church don't have a "light" to follow. Almost all of them are lost and they don't know it.

I would ask if he has written any more letters to sway elections, like he did when Bush was reelected in 2004. Does he still think that John Kerry should be excommunicated?

Since the quote was referenced, let me add:
Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Aung San Suu Kyi said that it is not the power that corrupts, but fear: Those who have power are afraid of losing it, and those who have no power are afraid of those who have it.

Sometimes the right question is asked by the wrong person. Would anyone have any interest in writing (or reading) a column on "What I'd ask Christopher Hitchens"?

I would ask him whether he will nominate for sainthood the 7 non-jew german school youths who rebeled against the nazi regime and were executed by the Gestapo.

They got a short life, a cold grave, and a posthumous movie for their moral courage

Then I would ask Ratzinger how he and his predecessor's quisling lives stack up against real moral courage ?

Just more talk the talk but can't walk the walk...phonies, the lot of them.

During my lifetime (90 Yrs) C. Hitchens played the Communist supporter.Having lost that one he has continued his athestic beliefs by attacking everything religious.All the time he earns a big paycheck as a reporter.He is a big time thinker.

Hitchens has asked the right question.

It's interesting to note the number of Bishops who managed to make politically charged statements during the last presidential campaign, but who didn't seem to notice the rotten morality of the church itself. Several of them made it clear that would not serve SEN KERRY AT THE COMMUNION RAIL What courageous souls. . .but how blind to the sins of the church itself. Bishop Browskowitz of Neb. come immediately to mind.

The sexual molestation of so many children by Roman Catholic priests is an incomprehensible evil and scandal.Serious Roman Catholics are probably more outraged than is any other sector of our society.
I have read enough about Mr. Hitchens and seen him frequently enough on television to be willing to concede that his is a genuine intellectual and a man of great learning.
Because of his undeniable intellectual and academic credentials, I am surprised that he would publicly state facts that so clearly can not be supported by any evidence.
Cardinal Law did not "organize" the rape and torture of "tens of thousands" of Americn Children. He did fail to punish priests whom he apparently knew were molesting children, and it does appear that he protected them by moving them around to differen parishes. His failures in this regard were truly inexcusable. But I imagine that words really matter, normally, to a genuine intellectual like Hitchens. The use by Hitchens of the word "organize" is very misleading and conveighs a message that distorts facts which are bad enough when reported accurately.

Further, from the records I have observed, some 14,000 claims of molestation have been made. Truly a terrible number, but far from "tens of thousands" And, as I recall, the time span that covers these claims goes back to the 1950s.

No one can defend what happened in this regard. But I do believe that in defense of the thousands of wonderful priests who have served in the United States since 1950, the least we can do (especially scholars who know better) is to keep their comments as close to the known facts as possible.

Chris: I'd pay to see you in a theological debate with Pope Benedict. He'd eat you up and spit you out like the phony you are. And he'd pray for you afterward.

I'd like to make some suggestions. Get rid of the goofy Halloweenish togs and clownish hats. You look like a silly old man. Dump all the dumb titles. You are MR. Ratzinger. Period. Lose the canes, poles, rings, candles, incense, popey mobile -- all the trappings that to the great unwashed make you appear more than just another old man who lucked into a hell of a great lifestyle. Can the untenable dogma, credo, whatever -- prime example, celibacy, the "gift from god." Please. Lastly, apologize for the harm your dumb religion has done throughout the ages. Oh yea, get rid of all the pervos!

Pope: I you had it to do over again: Would you joint the Nazi youth again or go to a concentration camp because you refused?

Just read that Catholic schools are closing nationwide, partly due to money given to victims of Cardinal Law and friends. I went Catholic school for 12 years, and liked the experience. The male hierarchy of the Catholic Church has helped destroy a great institution, and surprisingly or not, it's the right-wing set who decided to protect one another and not the kids.

Pete:

--"Those who take the time to learn the [Catholic] theology are awe-struck by God's beauty."

How does an eternally self-sufficient, perfect, immutable god become discontented with the status quo and why did it then will into existence an imperfect universe it didn't need?

Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, all-merciful god, which cares only about our happiness, populate this universe with imperfect creatures for whom this god would also have to create an eternal place of damnation for being the imperfect creatures it chose to create?

How is Jesus, an eternal and indivisible part of the Trinity, not responsible for the slaughter of Canaanite babies as detailed in the Old Testament?

To the extent that these and other foundational questions remain unanswerable, i.e. mysteries, how is it possible to "learn" anything of consequence about Catholic theology?

How do these apparent contradictions reveal "God's beauty" to you?

Aloha

Howdy Speed
You claim that there is tons of evidence that using condoms doesn't help prevent the spread of AIDS. Or perhaps you're saying "promoting" the use of condoms doesn't help.
Where is the evidence? A URL would be helpful. As you claim there is tons of evidence, I'm sure you will happily cite it for me.
Thanks in advance!
As I understand it, condoms are very effective in preventing the spread of STDs including AIDS, so any orginazation opposing the use of condoms is effectively promoting dangerous behavior and the deaths of millions. That hardly makes up for handing out food every so often.
BTW, you might recall what Jesus (assuming you've read the 4 gospels) said about rich people getting into Heaven, and look at the bejeweled Pope living in a palace and do the math. If the pope believed in what he preached, why would he driven about in a bullet proof pope-mobile? Perhaps because he's afraid of dying, because he knows there is no afterlife?

Cardinal law?

SPEED123 wrote (APRIL 11, 2008 4:31 PM): "Hitchens is a demigod selling an extreme-atheist / secularist ideololgy (sic) and it was not the intent of neo-con policy makers and pundits to just have people 'listen'."

I always get a kick out of it when somebody mouths off about 'atheist ideology'. I can see that you're operating under the destructive influence of a HUGE misconception here. You see… there's no such thing as 'atheist ideology'… just like there's no atheist 'faith'… no atheist 'religion'… no atheist 'dogma'… no atheist 'beliefs'… no atheist 'philosophy'… etc.

"Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief', or a 'religion', only in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'." ~ Unknown

What you perceive to be an attack on religion by atheists isn't that at all. Rather, it is a case of highly intelligent, well educated, sane and rational people coming to recognize that pervasive gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity are a threat to the future of our society, our world, and humanity in general… and therein lies the misconception.

The 'theist' position asserts a 'belief' on the basis of 'faith'. There is no logically valid proof for the existence of deities. So… on the basis that there is no logically valid proof for the existence of gods, atheists deem such beliefs to be stupid and irrelevant. In plainer language… the idea that deities exist causes their BS alarms to go off.

Those folks that society has decided to call 'atheists' do not 'believe' (for the most part) simply because they find that the reasons or alleged evidence purported to support the idea that invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairies (gods) 'exist' are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or sustain a mental state of 'belief'. The idea that there is some kind of a 'choice' involved seems ridiculous to me. The reasons for 'believing' are either good, or they're not good. If they're NOT good, then one's 'BS alarm' goes off. You do not 'choose' to have your BS alarm go off… it just goes off.

OK… so that's the end of that. Atheists are dispensed with. They are just folks who… for WHATEVER reason (or LACK of reasons) simply cannot be persuaded to BELIEVE in the existence of invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairies (gods)… and have functional BS alarms. That's that… finis… the end. Done with atheists.

So… now that we have dispensed with those pesky, annoying atheists… we come to highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational people. It is useful to take note that highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational and critically thinking people… as a rule… tend to look with disfavor and scorn upon gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. Many highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational and critically thinking people feel that it their ethical duty and moral responsibility to confront ANY of those insults to the human intellect, human dignity and the human condition whenever, wherever and however they encounter them. It just so happens (coincidentally, of course) that religion… particularly the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism (judaism, islam, christianity)… wraps up most or all of those dubious 'qualities' into one neat and tidy package (with a bow on top)… where they can be confronted all at once.

Confronting religion, then… serendipitously (as a happy incident)… becomes a simple matter of efficiency. Highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational and critically thinking people (in general) happen to LIKE efficiency.

[quote]"Ahh… arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you." ~ Londo Molari, Babylon 5[/quote]

So… in summary… atheists are simply people who do not believe in invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairies. The very idea causes their BS alarms to go off (which can be VERY annoying, if it happens all the time… which it does). That is all…. that is the ONLY thing that defines atheists. So… taking issue with religion is NOT am 'atheist thing'… rather, it is a 'sane and rational' thing. People just get blinded and distracted by the peculiar and eerie coincidence that most highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational and critically thinking people ALSO happen to be atheists.

You should try not to read too much into that.

It's OK for highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational and critically thinking people to be deeply offended by gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. It is OK for highly intelligent, well educated, sane, rational people to be grateful for the efficiency that arises (coincidentally) from the convenient fact that religion neatly encapsulates all of those deeply offensive insults to human intellect, human dignity and the human condition.

Bob Heinlein… a man of very subtle perceptive ability… really had a handle on what sane people are faced with…

"We define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logic. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued, 'either-or' logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can't use ANY sort of logic, and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder or surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from ASPIRING to higher reasoning, he is NOT EVEN AWARE that higher reasoning EXISTS… yet he classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.

For explanations of a universe that confuses him, he seizes onto numerology, astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even if at the cost of his own life. (…) one of the hardest things to believe is the abysmal depth of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein - 'Assignment in Eternity'

amen.

The catholic church has a centuries-old tradition to render "untouchable" any wayward priest above the rank of the garden-variety parish priest. The vatican has been asleep at the wheel dealing with any sex scandal within its ranks (including past popes), relying on time passed to dissipate any reaction from those who embrace this man-made made-up faith. Only when the church found its pocketbook was vulnerable to legal claims in this country (and now in other countries) did it become concerned about righting its wrongs. Just don't wait around to hear any MEA CULPAS emanating from the vatican.

TIM wrote(APRIL 12, 2008 6:22 AM): "… I do not understand why Hitchen (sic) is a guest writer for On Faith. His disrespectful attitude toward those who believe in God (to put it mildly) de-legitmizes (sic) anything he says about the church."

"… disrespectful attitude toward those who believe in God…".

LOL.

Let's see... you BELIEVE that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically (1) eat his flesh (2) and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was tricked by a malevolent entity (3) into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

(1) or actually… depending on which particular christ-cult sect you belong to
(2) in the form of a cracker
(3) disguised a talking snake... with legs

Your world-view... your perception of the fundamental 'truth' of existence and reality… is rooted in the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic, militant, marauding, genocidal goat herders.

From the moment you are born, you are guilty of an unpardonable sin committed the naive innocent (above) who DID NOT EVEN KNOW what a sin was, and had absolutely no concept of the potential implications and consequences that might arise from the trivial act... an act which had no more significance than a 3-year old child snagging a cookie from an off-limits cookie jar.

As a result of this inherited taint of 'guilt' upon the soul, you are doomed... after a brief stint on earth... to spend the rest of eternity (an infinite span of time) in a miserable existence of unspeakable pain, suffering, torment and torture... banished to the place of torment by the very same wonderful, loving, capricious, vengeful, murderous, genocidal, caring, compassionate, mass-murdering, forgiving, jealous... loving... did I already say loving?... supernatural entity who was offended by that innocent child-like transgression, so long ago...

The 'guilt' for that long-ago (mythical) transgression, which (allegedly) occurred in the dim and distant past, is passed down from generation-to-generation in the male's semen (according to theologians)... and that 'guilt' taints the soul of every human that ever was and ever will be conceived (well... except for Mary, of course... but that's another story).

BUT... there's nothing to worry about now. It all got fixed. The deity of the Abrahamic death cults of desert monotheism was often 'appeased' by blood sacrifice. It is well documented in the Holy Bible that he thoroughly enjoyed a good barbecue... and that a generous serving of blood COULD get him to change his mind. Heck... he often specified exactly how to butcher the critters and set up the barbecue... the ultimate 'executive chef'. Anyway... when he set up his own son/self to be cruelly tortured and suffer a gruesome and agonizing death... in a perverse public spectacle of blood sacrifice... he sacrificed HIMSELF... TO himself... in order to APPEASE himself. And by APPEASING himself by KILLING himself, he created a loophole, by way of which he is now in a position to DEFY himself, sneaking around behind his own back to give people a way to circumvent the implications and consequences of his own evil capricious whims and... (gasp)... must stop now. My hair hurts.

Is that just about right? If not... how, exactly, is it wrong?

And this is worthy of respect... WHY, exactly?

What a hoot.

I think that you are misperceiving this whole situation. Hitch is not so much disrespecting the PEOPLE who believe in god as he is disrespecting the BELIEFS of people who believe in god. Such beliefs are ...(how can I put this delicately?)... OK... insane. (That's about as delicate as I can make it.)

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

So... Hitchens is not disrespecting you... he is disrespecting your insane beliefs. Now the problem with HAVING such insane beliefs is they get internalized as a part of your 'self-description', where they DEFINE (to a large degree) who you are, and function as one of your primary interpretive filters (along with misconceptions, prejudices, knowledge-base and experiential reference). So... when a person such as yourself senses disrespect or criticism of your BELIEFS, it is perceived... quite naturally... as a direct attack upon the SELF.

But that's YOUR problem... not Hitchen's problem.

I'm quite sure that Mr. Hitchens is quite respectful of your right to delude yourself in any manner that you deem fit. I know I am. It's just that when your delusions (collectively) intrude upon, influence and shape our society and culture... to the point of endangering us all... well... it needs to be confronted. That's all.

As it stands now, over 85% of adult Americans profess to be 'believers' of one sort or another... which means that they are deluded.... which means they are insane, to one degree or another. Now... anything that defines over 85% of a population can be said... without argument, dispute or quibble of any kind... to define what is 'normal'. So... in the USA... insanity is NORMAL... sanity is ABNORMAL... and the inmates are running the asylum.

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs." ~ Unknown

In an insane society (ours), SANE people (like Hitchens) are regarded as dangerous.

Is Hitchens kidding? Who in this day of corporate journalism has the GUTS to ask this appropriate question? Ressurecting Izzy Stone may be you best hope.........or maaybe Jack Cafferty, but they will lock him in a closet until after the poe's gone.

I agree with Chris Hitchens.
It is unconscionable for the pope to give assylum to Cardinal Law.
But when you consider that the pope, prior to assuming that position, gave a mandate to protect priests accused of child abuse by telling dioceases all over this country to run out the statute of limitations and simply transfer offending priests to other parishes.
It is an outrage.
Many catholics have left the church over this travesty, and I'm one of them.
Annie

I would ask the Pope why he continues the facade of a celibate priesthood when that is totally incorrect. The Wilmington Diocese in Delaware has married priests, and I met a married seminarian at a catholic church in Maryland. But, the Catholic church still insists that the priesthood is celibate!

Too bad comrade Hitchens doesnt ask probing questions of Godron Brown,Abe Foxman, Barak, Bloomberg, Rowan Willi8ams and so many more people with feet of clay.

The question has no relevance to reality; in the Church the pope has absolute authority and power. As is well known---power corrupts and absolute power etc.

"Those who are most critical of the Catholic faith are those who understand it the least." Give me a break, Pete! One doesn't have to be a Roman Catholic to understand its theology or practices. Every thoughtful, decent human being is appalled by the Pope's conduct toward Cardinal Law who suffers no REAL consequences for his heinous decisions. Forgiveness doesn't include aiding and abetting, sins the Pope and Law are both guilty of. Whatever one may think of Hitchens, his question for the Pope is a correct one.

Hitchens is a hater not an Atheist.As he ages,he demonstrates he is the proverbial "Dead Man Walking".The Medical Examiner hasn`t made it official but little Christopher left the real world a long time ago.

"An anti-Catholic bigot attracts other anti-Catholic bigots who, judging from the tone and content of comments, include some bitter gays."

Uh, you'd be bitter too if someone was trying very hard to literally destroy the very thing you love most - your relationship with your life partner.

The Pope has gone out of his way to demonize gay people, and to insist that 'good' Catholics must insist on making life harder for gays, must insist on laws that deny them the legal and economic safety that comes with marriage laws, must insist on denying them basics like access to health care through their partner's insurance, must insist on making sure elderly poor lesbian couples have to suffer through more poverty as the near death (denying them access to basic legal structures and government programs that you as a straight person take for granted).

Who would Jesus persecute?

Who would Jesus deny healthcare to?

Who would Jesus force to live in poverty?

So, yes, a wee bit bitter here.

The hatred spewing forth from the mouths of anti-Catholic posters is very disturbing, although predictable.

In online design, we call it the "echo effect." In this case, an inflammatory, hate-filled initial post draws additional comments of the same ilk. An anti-Catholic bigot attracts other anti-Catholic bigots who, judging from the tone and content of comments, include some bitter gays.

If Hutchins have opened with a reasonable, rational statement, the quality of comments would likely be reasonable and rational. Why does the Post give voice to such a mean-spirited person?

Of course, this thread, like so many, confirms an observation that has stood the test of time. Those who are most critical of the Catholic faith are those who understand it the least. Those who take the time to learn the theology are awe-struck by God's beauty.

C.H., you don't do the victims or the issue any service when you so absurdly assert Cardinal Law "organized and excused the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American children."

This is not to defend Law, but to call you out when you go O'Reilly with such an absurd number. Your every word is contextual, so you owe the readers a better, if not more accurate, framework.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sex scandal, BFD. Inquisition and Crusades. More BFD's. Can we go back to the beginning? The statistical improbability of someone walking on water? Virgin births? Arising from the dead and bodily ascending, etc? And beyond that, coming to fulfill the prophesies accumulated by a nutty sect about a jumped-up desert storm god fond of appearing in burning bushes (would the they still did) and carving in stone? JFC, these guys make Scientology and LDS seem sane.

this blog is censored - try asking questions about the Church's nefarious actions in LA and Mexico

this blog is a propaganda site

You are correct but I doubt it will happen. We will see a whole lot of spectacle and very little journalism. Journalists are probably more worried about being invited to dinner then actually reporting on the horror the vatican has tried to cover up or just ignore.

Is CH's egoism now becoming surrounded by a holier-than-thou aura? (or has it always been there?)

The press to which you refer, died about 25 years ago.

I would ask the Pope what plans the Church has for Jerusalem after Israel hands the city over to His Holiness.

Let me bring up something nobody else in this forum has mentioned so far.

Catholic priests continue to sexually abuse children worldwide. The only thing that sets the US apart is that many of the guilty priests got caught and the scandal was made public.

Check with Canonic Law experts, Roman Catholic authorities and other church insiders in the rest of the world, if you have access to them. They are freaking out about the volume of abuse that continues unchecked. My data comes from Latin America, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were exactly the same in other regions with large Catholic communities.

In view of this, Ratzinger is not only guilty of shielding one guilty Cardinal who got caught and ran to Rome instead of facing consequences. He's also guilty of turning a blind eye to many others who still hurt children.

It has been a long, long time since he has drawn a sober breath (by his own admission), so I very much hope that Mr. Hitchens finds someone else to ask this or any Pope his questions, as I do not believe this Pope is a fellow drunk. Of course he too could be a drunken fool, like Hitchens, but I don't believe he is.

It is only fair, after all.

Yes, I agree. Of course, he'll ignore the question and bloviate. You know that. These bastards have 2000 years of practice. We can only hope that someone else will notice this time that he ignores and bloviates, and will start to follow the threads to truth.

Yonkers, New York
12 April 2008

Go right ahead, Cristopher Hitchens!

Go ask Pope Benedict XVI why the Vatican has granted asylum to somebody who in secular company qualifies as a criminal if not a monster.

That is, if you can penetrate the cordon sanitaire that is sure to surround and protect the pope from people like you in his visit to the United States.

And even if you succeed in confronting and embarrassing the pope by asking him that question, plus the other "supplemental" questions you have in mind, what good will it do as far as you and the whole world are concerned?

The pope will very likely simply brush you off with an angelic smile, and not deign to give you an answer you expect. He will very likely "bless" you as his (misguided) "son," and "pray" that you go to "heaven."

In the event, probably nonplussed and dumbfounded, what do you do, Christopher?

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

A wonderful Jewish philosopher once said, Catholisim has very profound answers to very trivial questions. Popes give very trivial answers to very profound questions. If you thought Petreus slippery, wait until you hear the Pope.

You want an answer? You already have it. He's sitting in a palace in Rome. He's the Law.

Bravo Hitchens !

Mr Hitchens,

As always, you challenge the status quo and accepted "givens" of any and all manmade, organized religion. Keep up the good work!

I wish more people would challenge these things. Perhaps then, the walls would crumble surrounding manmade, organized religion and we could all get on with doing GOD's work...without the interference of mankind.

Ethix Rulz

I know that everyone is free to express their own opinions, and as a church employee of over 30 years, I understand why many are angry and full of rage toward the hierarchy. And we do ask the questions Hitchens asks. But I do not understand why Hitchen is a guest writer for On Faith. His disrespectful attitude toward those who believe in God (to put it mildly) de-legitmizes anything he says about the church.

And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

be ye therefore wise as serpents, we have the mind of Christ, the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, one mind and one mouth glorify God

his fingers into his ears, touched his tongue, shall speak with new tongues, the heart, the mind, one mouth

Away with him The father
Away with him the son
crucify him the holy ghost

For we know that the law is spiritual

Here is the truth

And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

I will make your heaven as iron, smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground, and brass in abundance without weight, his feet like unto fine brass

the grace of god, how can ye escape the damnation of hell

I will make your heaven as iron, crucify him
glorify God

Its fascinating to read the posts of believers who claim that Cardinal Law is above the Law and will somehow be absolved for his criminal acts by God just by saying "I'm sorry."

That belief trivializes the sordid criminality aided and abetted by this so called Prince of the Church and implicitly asserts that he unaccountable to the young victims, or their parents or society, at large, for his crimes.

That is in fact condonation of his criminal acts as well as those of his co conspirators in covering up the crimes of his priests by failing to report them to the police and their subsequent acts as accessories before the fact to the crimes against nature later perpetrated by the priests whom he sent to outlying parishes without warning parents of their propensity for young boys.

As they seem won't to say; "Jesus saves me, the rest of you go to jail."

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Ratzinger saith unto them, Shall I crucify your Cardinal. The chief priests answered, We have no Cardinal but Law.

Shall I crucify your Cardinal, We have no Cardinal but Carnal Law, crucify him. I am carnal, sold under sin. For to be carnally minded is death and the Gentiles duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things

The father, the son, the holy ghost

Away with him The father
Away with him the son
crucify him the holy ghost
For we know that the law is spiritual

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

Of all the sins committed thus far by the catholic church,this is the worst.

Anyone who is connected to this disgrace should be handed over to the authorities along with all evidence.

Let the legal system start prosecutions.

Maybe then the media will cover it. But I won't count on it.

Yaknow, since they brought up Cardinal Law,

I want him in jail. Then he can talk to me.

Again. Didn't seem to help the first time when he had all those fancy dresses.

To meet the censors' requirements, several of us are displeased with one cardinal who elected this current Pope on the matter of certain matters of fleeing America to escape prosecution regarding certain misdeeds which may or may not have been perpetrated on some people who remember damn well enough what happened before getting blamed for being abused cause we ain't stright and are 'sinners' anyway...

If some people would like to claim the 'moral high ground' over us in all matters of American politics, there are some who of course would appreciate the reciprocal gesture of extraditing the deservedly-indicted Bernie Law before the Church further seeks to intrude upon our lives.

MR. HITCHENS -

CARDINAL LAW WAS CALLED TO THE VATICAN BY JOHN PAUL II AND NAMED BY HIM TO BE ARCH-PRIEST OF SANTA MARIA MAGGIORE.

WHATEVER HIS REASONS FOR DOING THAT, CARDINAL RATZINGER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. NOW, AS BENEDICT XVI, HE IS NOT LIKELY TO 'TURN ON' HIS PREDECESSOR BY RESCINDING HIS DECISION ON CARDINAL LAW.

OF COURSE, WE WOULD ALL FEEL MUCH BETTER IF THE GOOD CARDINAL HAD THE GRACE TO RESIGN HIS POSITION AND DO APPROPRIATE PENITENCE FOR HIS ABOMINABLE MISHANDLING OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE CASES IN HIS JURISDICTION.

BUT DON'T PLAY CHEAPO 'GOTCHA!' WITH BENEDICT ON THIS. IT'S JOHN PAUL II YOU'D HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

IN FACT, DON'T YOU THINK THAT IT IS DEFERENCE TO THE LATE GREAT POPE THAT HAS KEPT MEDIA FROM BRINGING UP THE QUESTION OF CARDINAL LAW?????

I got this wild idea, here, that maybe if Their Righteousnesses can't find it in their hearts not to abuse a lot of kids, it's just possible that that *book* isn't a magic talisman with some Ultimate Authority to define my life with the force of secular law.

Wow. Go figure.

Maybe you can work that out among yourselves before demanding I get no equal protection under the law or something.

Just this wild idea I got.

If that's a fancy way of saying Bernie Law ought to have been allowed to scarper on some extranational Vatican thing, cause of some pastiche of Revelations and the general 'You Crucified Jesus Cause We Told You To, You Catholics! Silence!'

(Yeah, Good Friday's like that, right before they say 'Convert the world' )

No, it's about what he did as a human man claiming to be living to better expectations.

I want to look the man in the eye and say 'What makes you think anything in your book gives you the right to interfere in America, you pederast-sheltering well-ya-know?.'

Pardon my Bostonian, but *what *is* that?

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Shall I crucify your King, We have no king but Caesar, crucify him

And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings; and brass in abundance without weight;

And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No. Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples. So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel. And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

I will make your heaven as iron
David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates
a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground

your earth as brass
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

I will make your heaven as iron, smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground, and brass in abundance without weight, his feet like unto fine brass

Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up.

And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

Shall I crucify your King, We have no king but Caesar, crucify him, deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul, I might have a prosperous journey, the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners, I will make your heaven as iron, the nail was in his temples. So God subdued on that day Caesar the king of .........

Can't comment on what Law did, or Church electioneering.

But if I could. I would say it ain't fear.

As for a lot of comments regarding Bernie Law and his extranational privilege.

I remember a couple things.

I wouldn't mind discussing them. Being a big girll, now. If you know what I mean.

And, if you wanna 'forgive' someone, Cynthia:

Let my people go.

Frankly, Cynthia, you may call Bernie's 'sin' a 'mistake,' but *he* draws equivalencies between his well-orchestrated and defended *coverups* and the 'sin' of the victims either being what we are, or being straight kids taught to be more scared of being called 'gay' than to admit the priests were abusing them.

Girls were safer from the sex that's the only thing people care about... not the beatings, and not the survivor's guilt.

Summabich got things to answer for. Period.

And the Pope he helped elect does, too.

" cynthialaforty:

If you don't understand why the Pope forgave a sinful man you don't understand the Catholic faith. We all make mistakes."

I understand all too well. His kind of 'mistakes' you get rewarded with immunity and a posh Vatican post for, where he can keep on blaming an entire class of people who happen to be the most frequent victims, for what he supported, enabled, and covered up for.

If you don't understand why the Pope forgave a sinful man you don't understand the Catholic faith. We all make mistakes..some are so way worse than others but if we are forgiven on our mistakes that we do really truly repent upon than and only than we will know the love of God and that is in my opinion what life is all about.. to know that God loves all of us mistakes and all no matter what(shocked) Sincerely Cynthia

Let's make it very simple, here: the Church's doctrinal insistence that gay people don't exist has long, long, long, resulted in that proportion of the population being either forced to marry and spawn with people they don't love, *or* participate in the only acceptable not-being-straight by hiding among Church celibacy and *promulgating* certain dysfunctions, ...at the expense of those it's 'taught' to.

This cycle is *old.* It's not limited to Catholics, by any means, but they have particular institutions to cover for it.

Girls are a little safer 'sexually,' cause virginity' is prized, but don't dare speak up, or it's open season for the other sense of 'spare the rod.'

All this is put on for money, by money. The sponsors love it. They don't screen the horrible and most on here is that.

PDM,

It's not all that mysterious. Religion is shoved down non-believer's throats at every turn in this country--in our politics, in our schools, in our science. You can't be the President of this country unless you area Christian, willing to pander to Christians. Non-believer's have no "organized" outlet as religions do to speak out and affirm their beliefs (of non-belief in vengeful dieties). So posting on anonymous message boards is one of the few ways non-believers can have a say in the public square in this country. And when the topic is a famous atheist saying what he would ask the Pope...well, like I said, it's really no mystery.

I suspect that Cardinal Law believed that he, as someone with an especially close relation to God, would have his prayers for the redemption of the child molesters answered. I am serious.

"Only recently gays have been beaten and even killed in the US, which violence is contributed to by the Vaticans failure to become educated on the issue"

'Only recently?'

Are you serious?

I am curious if anybody has evaluated what percentage of the posts here on this site come from atheists/anti-theists/agnostics, as opposed to believers. A cursory glance at this particular topic seems to indicate a clear majority of the former. I wonder why that is. What characteristics do people think "non-believers" have that cause them to comment with such frequency on these topics?

Mr. Hitchens is correct and for reasons of his own. Many of all religions and are turned off by the Vatican's policies.

Many questions need to be asked of the Pontiff in a calm but very concerned way.

How can the Pope think that people like Ellen D, Elton J., Rosie O'Donnell, who bravely left the dark old closets to help others who fear coming out. They care more than our Church did/does.

Only recently gays have been beaten and even killed in the US, which violence is contributed to by the Vaticans failure to become educated on the issue. Fifty or a hundred years from now --to accept--is wrong. Thos thats the Church's plodding way they defend.

Hanging on to millions of uneducated third world "Catholics" is a shirking of responsibiltiy

The right answer the Pope needs to give to all of us is: THE CHURCH LEFT YOU ----AND I APOLOGIZE. I AM HERE TO CHANGE THAT FOREVER.

" speed123:

I am not a priest - I am a 25 year old guy who is sick of hearing lies about his faith every other day of the week. Want to feel discrimination? Tell people at a dinner party that you are a practicing Roman Catholic."

As a Pagan, let me tell you, my heart weeps for you.

Try saying it at a *job* interview. Or a lynching. :)

I am not a priest - I am a 25 year old guy who is sick of hearing lies about his faith every other day of the week. Want to feel discrimination? Tell people at a dinner party that you are a practicing Roman Catholic.

They say, in this PC world, that anti-catholicism is the last refuge of a scoundrel...(i.e. Hitchens)

As for abuse, the numbers are very close to correct - google: cnn teacher sex abuse, or AP abuse in public schools for the public schools numbers.

Much higher and as for higher callings - aspects of human nature are the same no matter the job.

bill dunlap wrote:

"How ca this pope that the archbishop fromn Boston, who so discraced the order for years by allowing the abuse to go on and continue under his nose be allowed to be bishop of Rome.
It smacks in the face of all those of us who pay attention, and it is a discrace. April 11, 2008 2:13 PM"

Dear bill [sic],
Huh? Even if English is your second language, you really have to do a better job of making your point/s. I have no idea what you are talking about. Typos, spelling, grammar, etc... All these make it possible for your readers to understand what you want to communicate. Try again?

Ok, we're glitched, I hear.

But, Speed, 'Five percent' is not an acceptable rate of abuse for those who claim eternal and unquestioned authority, wherever you get your figures from.

They claim special privilege, and special means to cow dissent, then they *should* be held to a higher standard, not that I know where you get your figures from.

Only five percent, you say.

What's the odds on a Catholic kid not meeting twenty priests?

speed123 wrote : "Nice to see all of the extremists are on the same page "

You don't know what you're talking about. Study Catholic history and you would know what extremists means. Many of their priests help leftist groups in many catholic countries. Millions have died because of their extreme doctrines.

They are "pretty" on the outside but ravening wolves in the inside.

What are you? A priest? Are you on their payroll?

So say we all.

Don't be an ignorant bigot, Josh...

"The rampant and institutionalized molestation"

Try less than 5 percent of clergy are accused - this is not rampant - however, the likes of Hitchens and the secular media would like sheep like Josh to think so.

There is much more abuse in secular public schools - close to 10 percent of staff accused - and it is IGNORED by the media (unless it happens to be a hot blonde with some 13 year old...)

Get a life.

I'd really like to see some evidence for your allegation that Cardinal Law "organized... the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American children." In any other context, you would be summarily fired (and likely sued) for such absurd claims. However, given how much money the Post makes from the traffic they generate by posting sensationalist, inflammatory, bush-league "religious" commentary on these pages, that's unlikely to happen. Let me clarify: what evidence do you have that Cardinal "organized" these instances of sexual abuse, and what evidence do you have that the instances for which he is allegedly responsible include "tens of thousands of American children?" In the event that you are unable to provide such evidence, you might avoid further shaming and disgracing your profession by retracting or reformulating your remarks.

The rampant and institutionalized molestation of children within the American Catholic Church is nothing short of racketeering, and ought to have been investigated and prosecuted as such. But only behind the veil of God, and hundreds of millions of dollars, can such an institution escape Federal inquiry and retain the support of credulous followers the world over. Had it been any other, secular organization, the Catholic Church would have been the first to call for heads.

Of course, I recall that Ratzinger's response to these revelations was that the pedophilia was committed by all sorts of humans with varying and differing beliefs, and that Catholics shouldn't be held to a greater standard.

Hmmm, that's some righteous God you're worshipping, Mr. Pope.

The questions Hitchens would ask are nothing more than what the Vatican might have anticipated when they decided to retrieve Law back into the mothership. That the Vatican has so far failed to adequately address them speaks volumes for the level of respect that that entity has for American Catholicism.

Why does it seem that Christopher Hitchens, an admitted anti-theist, is permitted to only criticize religions *less* than even their own adherents?

Who would have ever thought that a militant evangelical and militant atheist would have such similar opinions?

These two should really be the ones going out for a drink!

Nice to see all of the extremists (i.e. Chris Hitches, Spiderman2 etc.) are on the same page ;)

Catholicism is the Devil's Church. It is wise and cunning. You may hate me for saying that but I believe that the Vatican is the seat of Satan from the start upto now.

Whenever the Vatican speaks or any of their high priests, take it with suspicion. It is WISE AND VERY CUNNING.

If you study their history, their downfall was caused when the Bible was distributed to the masses.

Soon, it will display it's true color and it will lead to it's devastation.

Well, well, well...

I guess you have to be inflammatory on this site to get attention, but alas I will not be.

But if Mr. Hitchens is viewing this blog, as I mentioned before I would love to have a drink with him, I am a cradle Catholic, born in of all places Youngstown, Ohio and have lived in a good bit of the US, (NM,UT,AK,WV,OH)...also consider myself somewhat of an intellectual...have degrees in anthropology, education and GIS and just got done watching the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour and believe that the actual, although not official, breakup of the Beatles should be assigned to the day after this travesty was aired to the British public in either late 1967 or Christmas 1968.

I am back in Y-town to help take care of my Mother who has cancer and is a turbo-Catholic and would like some interesting conversation so this is an invite to all those on this discussion to drop me a line.

If this is censored, I hope you at least got a laugh at the reference to MMT.

Sincerely,

LTK

I'd ask him how he can possibly defend moving the church away from evolution in the 21st century, he's ghetto-izing Catholic congregations into a radicalized population of know-nothings.

Looking at the last seven posts or so, it looks like Hitchen's acolytes are out in full force...

Tell the [un] Holy Pope to take All his

So does The "MOTHER OF HARLOTS" [Catholic Church] have blood on her hands!

Novermber 27, 2004 issue of the prestigious British medical journal "The Lancet" shows that of the three interventions scientifically shown to prevent AIDs - abstinence, being faithful, and using condoms - the use of condoms clearly comes last and should be promoted as a first-line defense only to those in extremely high-risk groups, such as commercial sex workers.

"Organized....the rape and torture of tens of thousands of American Children." Really?

Ratzinger and Law may have indisrections in common. It is one thing to defend the Church against litigation. It is something else to be a holy hypocrit. St. Peter may concede a shade of gray about the former, but not about the latter. Better a little time in Purgatory than an express ticket to where he and Law will have to share eternity in heat with some nasty cellmates.

Hey Mark, very cool - I was on itunes last night after our conversations and downloaded my first bit of Mozart - so thanks for that! (I am in my twenties - hence my limited knowledge of classical - and work for a website which I won't disclose here ;)

Marc, there is TONS of evidence that condom distribution does not limit the spread of AIDs (except in high risk occupations such as prostitutes) and that the rates of infection are highest in non-Catholic countries - Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana.

As for war, you did say that the Church "promotes" war. In reality, this is dictated by Augustine's just war philosophy and only defensive wars are permitted as just...

Christopher Hitchens needs to grow up.

I think that Hitchens' question is perfectly legitimate and is in no way an expression of animus or even disrespect toward that Catholic Church. It is very narrow in scope and makes no comment on the beliefs, history, legitimacy of the CC.

I am, I admit a fan of Hitchens. I am also a Catholic. I think he is wrong about religion, but I enjoy listening to his arguments and points of view.

As for the Church being the most evil institution in history, etc., all I can say is that it will outlive all of the comments on this board as well as those making the comments.

Howdy Speed
I never said the Church promoted the war. However Catholic doctrine does justify soldiers taking the lives of "enemy soldiers", no? Which is exactly against the teachings of Jesus (if you bother to read Jesus's words)
As for claim that rates of AIDS is higher in non-Catholic countries, I'd love to see the source of that information. The fact is that condoms are the most effective method of preventing the spread of AIDS, period, so one guesses that you are making up facts to back up whatever position it is you hold.
Better luck next time!

Dear Speedy -

Thanks for the nice words. Yes, I'm a classical musician. Or, more precisely, I was. My university degree was in music. I studied as an oboist, conductor and singer, but in my professional life I also found myself playing church organ on occasion (now, THAT was scary! I didn't really have the chops to do that correctly, so I faked a lot...ie: limited pedal work).

These days I work as a fund raiser and marketer in the arts. I currently live and work in SoCal.

"Church contributes to the spread of STDs such as AIDS, or promotes the mistreatment of women, or promotes war."

Nice try, Marc...

Evangelicals and Jewish leaders were at the forefront of the Iraq war promotion; the Church spoke out early, and forcefully against the invasion. It is also a leading force in protecting the dignity of women.

As for AIDs, there are much higher rates of AIDs in Anglo-protestant African countries that promote condoms (that are never used) than in Catholic countries.

The canards on here really are getting old....do you people not think for yourselves ;)

The problem with the church is that it is a man-made institution with more interest in spreading it's own power than in living by anything Jesus said. This Pope is a bad person, period, and is speaks to the emptiness of the Church as an orginazation that he has any position of power at all. The fact is that the Catholic Church promotes all sorts of bad practices in the name of being subservient to dogma. I don't really care if every so often the Catholic Church hands out scraps of food or an underused bandaid when at the same time the Church contributes to the spread of STDs such as AIDS, or promotes the mistreatment of women, or promotes war.
Hitchens, on the other hand, has certainly been wrong in many of his positions (especially his bombastic and unrepentent views on the Iraq invasion). However the Press doesn't bow down to him or treat him like he speaks for God.

Mark,

That was not an insult to your intellect! (are you a classical musician, btw?)

As for the comment: "you discount every single word of anyone who doesn't buy into your personal religious fantasies"

No true; however, replace the word "religious" with the word "secular" in that sentence and it would describe Hitchen's philosophy.

We are going to have to agree to disagree...

NB to all: sorry about the high number of typos in my recent posts. My proofreading of my own efforts needs improving.

I'll try to do better going forward.

Christopher Hitchens is dead wrong about Iraq. But when it comes to religion, he is just terrific. How I'd love to hear him take down RatsoRizzo!

PS - Chris, on your next vainglorious trip to the plastic surgeon, I suggest that you implant of couple of horns on that rather large head of yours...

Would make for a great visual next time you the blow-hard seat on the Bill Maher show and really bring validity to your claim to be the "devil's advocate"...

Dear Speedy -

No, I am not "smarter than this." My words as written stand.

Let's face it, you discount every single word of anyone who doesn't buy into your personal religious fantasies. I understand that. It's par for the course among the fantasy based set.

However, unlike most "nice people" on the religious bandwagon, you can't seem to resist going over the line into name calling when offering your take on things. In your last post alone, you describe Hitchens as a "demigod selling an extreme-atheist/secularist ideology" and "a hypocrite...posturing as a "humanitarian." You then assure us that your assessment of Hitch is "a fact," not an opinion.

But Hitch isn't the only person involved in your last post. I'm there, too, so you toss in a gratuitous attack on my intellect, just to show you're an equal-opportunity abuser.

And here was I feeling encourage by our banter over classical music. Perhaps we should meet at some blog that sticks to music as its raison d'etre and forget the religion and politics sparring?

Come on, Mark - you are smarter than this!

"Hitchens doesn't ask people to put faith in him or his ideas, but just to listen."

Hitchens is a demigod selling an extreme-atheist / secularist ideololgy and it was not the intent of neo-con policy makers and pundits to just have people "listen."

Chris - posturing as a "humanitarian" - is a hypocrite and just because you agree with his views in regards to atheism does not change this fact.

Hitchens has been consistent in his support for taking out Saddam. He doesn't believe in trying to make nice with those we consider our enemies. He believes you take them on and defeat them.

To take Hitchens' belief that the war was a good cause and to expand that into assuming he gives his undying support to BushCo would be folly. Hitchens has made clear in many columns and many TV appearances where he disagrees vehemently with BushCo.

I don't agree with Hitchens' support for the war, neither do I find his rationale for support particularly compelling. However, I don't demand nor expect to ever be in 100% agreement with anyone. I'll leave that for the religious whose lot in life is to swallow their church's dogma hook, line and sinker to be considered a "true and faithful servant."

Hitchens doesn't ask people to put faith in him or his ideas, but just to listen. On the issue of Cardinal Law and the Pope's offering sanctuary to a criminal, he is right on target.

BTW - it would be interesting to know what vices attend to those on this thread who choose to berate Hitchens for his particular vices. For me, Hitchens makes more sense when he's three sheets to the wind than most people make when on their best behavior. If sobriety were the measure of a person's intellect and discernment, then we should all be running to support GW bush and his policies, shouldn't we?

Again, thanks to Hitchens for another on-point On Faith effort.

Aren't a number of these comments simply offensive? Many are not really addressing the question (which is a valid question, though stated in an inflammatory way). If the editor is letting comments like Candide's through, I wonder what isn't getting through... I wonder what the purpose of this exchange is - merely venting or actually exchanging views on the individual and collective responsibility for the abuse scandal!

I believe that Hitchen's is a courageous man in his pontificating on a number of topics (including his issues with Islam), sorry for the pun, but no institution has complete control over its members or practitioners. I must admit that I am a bit ignorant on all of the facts concerning Law, but I do know that one of the biggest problems within Christianity is the concept of forgiveness. It all means nothing if once someone commits a heinous act they can never be redeemed.

I also agree that there is a lot of anti-Christian bias on this blog. Kudos to speed123 for his comment on Candides comment.

Finally I think it would be a blast to tip one back with C.H.

LTK

I see that not even a discussion of the Church's complicity in pedophilia can be isolated from the tedious bleating of the anti-war crackpots.Can no one find something for these twits to do?

Right on! The pope, like the mullahs, the ayatullahs, and the rabbis, must not get away with such arbitrary perversion of universal ethical priniciples.

Hitchens smugness slays me. As others have said, let's grill him on his certainty about the slaughter of Iraq.

Amen!

We're sorry for the technical difficulties. We think a system glitch is inadvertently blocking some perfectly acceptable comments. We are looking into the problem. We think it may have something to do with whether the comment is posted multiple times. Please be patient when you post a comment. Try to wait 5-10 minutes before posting again. Thank you.

Absolutely. Catholicism, like any religious institution, is free to discriminate against homosexuals and blithely condemn Democrats, but it cannot transgress the law by allowing accomplices to pedophilia sanctuary in Vatican City.

Speed123,

Yes, the irony. I'm not very familiar with Mr. Hitchens views on the Iraq war but I'd be interested to hear his rationale for favoring it, or his mea culpa if he now realizes what a disaster it is.

"Morality isn't about adhering to religious strictures or indulging in vanglorious sermonizing. It's about not making choices that cause, or perpetuate, harm, and about calling to account those who make such choices."

Ah, the irony!!!!!

What is truly sickening is Hitchen's (and all neo-cons) lack of remorse for the senseless war they promoted and the raping and destruction of an entire country...

What about those children, Chris?

How ca this pope that the archbishop fromn Boston, who so discraced the order for years by allowing the abuse to go on and continue under his nose be allowed to be bishop of Rome.
It smacks in the face of all those of us who pay attention, and it is a discrace.

I'd want to know, "Does the pope sh*t in the woods?"

Patrick,

In what way is Mr. Hitchens immoral? What do alcohol and pleasure have to do with morality, anyway. I think Mr. Hitchens is raising an important point about morality - it's not what most people think it is. Morality isn't about adhering to religious strictures or indulging in vanglorious sermonizing. It's about not making choices that cause, or perpetuate, harm, and about calling to account those who make such choices. With respect to harboring Mr. Law, Mr. Ratzinger does not appear particularly moral.

Of course, the real story is "What is this backwards old man, heading up a decaying institution of superstition and oppression, doing here anyway, and why should we care? His words are utter nonsense. His arrogance and pretensions are insufferable. He is a ghost from the distant past. What a grim reminder. Brrr."

Kacoo writes:

"Hitchens is such a bore."

Yes, it's so boring to demand accountability from the Pope who is harboring a lowlife sleazeball who aided and abetted child abusers for decades. It's so boring to point out that the Pope is by extension aiding and abetting those same child abusers.

Perhaps you'd be less bored if Hitchens wrote a column encouraging everyone to watch American Idol?

Candide: "The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest and next to the Nazi SS the most evil institution in human history."

If you took the words "Roman Catholic Church" out of that screed and inserted Jews, you would have the beginnings of the protocols of Zion...

The Protocols of Zion deeply offend Chris Hitch, but not it's Catholic equivalent...I wonder why???

As for canards about Catholics being anti-tech, or anti-science - the Church is pro science; however, if feels men should be served by technology, no serve technology.

PS - the highest population explosions are in non_Catholic countries (China, India, Indonesia) - explain that, bigots.

My experience growing up Catholic and fending off the occasional advances from homosexual priests is that most priests and nuns were decent but naive to the point of being blind. In any case it seems to me to be irony of biblical proportions for an alcoholic Manhattan sybarite to be passing moral judgment from afar on anyone.

Hitchens is such a bore. Even his book is remaindered.

PS - this blog is being censored from real responses to Chris' inherent bigotry against Catholics.

Like he cares about children! Ha!

What of the Iraqi children that your words helped rain hell on?

Fat chance. I'm afraid that "your profession" mainly consists of a herd of moneymaking hacks. The big market incentive here is simply to pander to Catholics who are interested in the Pope from a feel-good human interest perspective.

Wanderer - Before you congratulate Catholocism for its charity to the poor, you should ask yourself, "what actually ELIMINATES poverty, and how has Catholicism played a part in that?" The short answer is that science, secularism and democracy are the engines of wealth, and the Catholic church has been an enemy of all three for two thousand years. Where it has made progress, it has done so kicking and screaming, as the worlds second-most lagging indicator.

If it were not for the past centuries of "pope a dopes"
Europe would have been on a "rope".

The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest and next to the Nazi SS the most evil institution in human history.

There are questions about the Banco Ambrosiano that need clearing up as well. More deeply, there is the question of how far the Church accepts any obligation to obey merely human laws. This isn't a problem only for the Church: any organisation that claims to pursue the right and the good faces the question of what happens when its own studies of the right and the good puts it into conflict with the majority and the consensus.

Indeed. Hitchens is right on the mark, as he so frequently is. At the risk of sounding biased, I might add that I have taken the liberty of renaming the Catholic religion: Pope-A-Dope. Nice, huh?

Certainly I agree that the abuse scandal was disgusting. Certainly I agree that all those who perpetrated this should see prison time. But Mr. Hitchens, you never seem to compliment the church. What about soup kitchens? What about medical supplies which are provided to the poor, both here and abroad? What about all those Religious who DON'T abuse those who trust them? And I know you didn't like her, thought she was overrated, etc., but don't you think it was tacky to insult Mother Teresa at her funeral? Sometimes you can just not say anything.

I just want to know why Hitchens is afraid to debate real Christian scholars and apologists like William Lane Craig or R.C. Sproul instead of chumps like Al Sharpton.

And who cares what Hitchens wants of the Pope.

Mr. Hitchens,

I share your interest in hearing a response to this question. However, I fear serious issues will be ignored by a pool of journalists so easily captivated by the Benedict Bobble-head story.

I am sure that those attendees allowed to ask questions will be thoroughly screened, vetted and admonished. In other words, it will be a cold day in Hell....if one believes in that sort of thing.

This is the sound of one mouth flapping.

Uhhh...amen!?!