Hitchens' Hubris

Hitchens certainly seems to be an unhappy person.

What he is is a mean drunk. He is drunk a lot.

condoms are not a “necessary” condition for preventing the transmission of AIDS, or else celibates would all be infected.

The author leaves out sexually active but monogamous couples, heterosexual or homosexual. They also will not contract the disease, short of some wild mischance involving a blood transfusion or something similar.

Despite Hitch being a major idiot in some respects, notably with regard to anything involving religion, he has been one of our most staunch allies in the struggle against militant Islamists. I'll take him over a lot of other people, given that. He can believe anything he wants as long as he fights on my side.

He believes in God now. If he didn’t, he’d never have written the book.

A very good demolish of the poseur hitchens.

You try being 16 years old and ordered to join the Hitlerjugend or be forced to leave school. Fortunately a sympathetic professor entered him on paper and he didn't attend meetings. He was eventually drafted towards the end of the war (like everyone else over the age of 12) but deserted. Would you have had the nerve to desert and risk execution? I doubt it.
Vatican propaganda...Ratzinger joined and attended, whether willingly or not.

Guess you didn't know that BXVI's father was a notable anti-Nazi who was persecuted and forced to leave town for his beliefs?
The RCs I admire most are patriots such as Lt. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, Gen. Peter Graf von Wartenburg and Gen. Ulrich Wilhelm Graf Schwerin von Schwanenfeld who ACTIVELY tried to do something about Der Fuhrer. Ratzinger and his pop were more in the "First they took the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew" category.

People never seem to tire of spreading lies about Catholics.
And some RCs (you) never seem to tire of defending anything about the church (i.e. Inquisition, clerical celibacy, papal infallibility, predatory pedophiles in the priesthood, divorce and remarriage, exclusivity from Eucharist, etc., etc.). If God truly is God and omniscient, He doesn't need puny fallible humans to try to defend Him or his churches (that's right "churches" as in all of Christianity--not just the Mother church that Ratzinger claims is the only "true" church.)

Everyone is a critic....LOL..

Thanks for the correction.

You show me where I've ever defended ephebophilia (the more accurate term - 80%+ were homosexual seductions of post-pubescent boys) in the Catholic Church. You will look for a long time, because you WON'T find it. And shame on you for suggesting that any conservative would defend pedophilia in ANY context.

Your examples of patriots were high-ranking German officers who were in a position to at least TRY to do something about Hitler. A police officer in rural Bavaria who is being harassed for his anti-Nazi position and a 16 year old kid are not in much of a position to do anything. Try to be realistic.

As for the Hitlerjugend issue . . . I read BXVI's own account of the professor who put him on the books. Are you suggesting that BXVI is a liar? And on what basis do you make that slanderous accusation?

You bet I'm a partisan for my religion. If I didn't think the Catholic Church was the best church going, I wouldn't be a member. I joined as an adult, of my own free will. But I don't lie about it, even to defend it. The Church can defend herself quite well with the truth.

And I certainly don't spread unsupported slander and lies about other people's churches, or other posters on FR.

Shame on you, again.

I had to sit through MND about ten times because my daughter was working Tech Crew on that play in high school. That, and Hamlet. They never did "The Scottish Play" (you never refer to MacBeth by name in the theater. VERY bad luck.)

MND was also the first play I ever had a part in (I was the fourth fairy - Mustardseed. I had one line: "And I!" I was 6 years old. And I was hooked for life on theater.)

I wasn't implying that you, specifically, were defending the predatory priests...but Ratzinger (I won't dignify him by calling him "pope" as the last real pope, IMO, was John-Paul II, one of the most saintly Christ-like men in my memory) but Ratzinger has more or less defended them with such statements as told to the Catholic News Service ( click here ) when he said that he thought that the pedophile priest scandal was being driven by a media set on making the Catholic Church look bad:

“I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests ... is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower.

“Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion.”

Sorry if I have offended you but I will not in good Christian faith let someone tell me that I don't belong to a "true church"...Ratzinger is setting back the Church Jesus chose to begin a new religion 1,000 years, IMO, and my opinion seems shared by many others: click here

No, the media has had a field day misquoting BXVI in a deliberate attempt to make him look bad.

Just like the media is continuing to beat the dead horse of the homosexual Catholic priests, when there are no current cases (the lawsuits involve molestations that occurred 10 or 20 years ago or even longer) and the Church has taken strenuous steps to stop any more cases from occurring. Every diocese has an audit of reported cases, and it is plain that there has been a real and lasting effect from the policies that have been put in place. The news media doesn't like to talk about that though, and continues to muddy the waters by referring to "pedophiles", because they have a real cognitive dissonance problem due to their overwhelming support for "gay" activists . . . which conflicts with their hatred of the Catholic Church.

Other groups such as public school teachers have many times more child molesters (and real ones, too - NAMBLA types who prey on elementary school kids, not homosexual recruiters of young men) and have done NOTHING to address the problem, but the news media are silent. Much of the anti-Catholic publicity is also coming from the lawyers who have lawsuits pending.

It amazes me that posters on Free Republic absolutely suspend their usual caution and suspicion of the liberal media AND plaintiffs' lawyers when the Catholic Church is involved. No curiosity about who benefits, or why.

And nothing has changed about the Catholic teaching on the Church. The Catechism reiterates that all Christian churches share in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the truth. The Catholic Church, however, has what is termed the "fullness of truth" - in other words, that it has the teachings that are truest to those of the early Church and the Apostles and Christ Himself. Nobody has said that other churches are not "true churches". This is a ginned up controversy on a par with the Mohammed cartoons, intended to enrage the anti-Catholics.

Quit suspending your disbelief for a moment, and ask yourself, WHO is attacking the Catholic Church, and why? The liberal news media is beating up on the Church because it is the last large, organized religious body that uniformly opposes abortion, euthanasia, and the worship of government as the source of all good. The liberal zeitgeist has already conquered the Episcopalians completely, and has made serious inroads on the Methodists and Lutherans.

Baptists and other Evangelicals do not have the hierarchical organization that the Catholics do, so they are harder to attack. But rest assured that, if the Catholics are brought down by the media, they are next.

You might want to rethink your position on BXVI. Have you actually read any of his works? I would suggest his splendid essay on the meaning of the liturgy and music -- a subject dear to my heart -- or his Introduction to Christianity. I have read him in the original German, and he has a real talent for explaining knotty concepts in clear, easy to understand language -- but not cutting any intellectual corners. It's not an understatement to say that he is a brilliant theologian.

He is not the charismatic crowd-pleaser that John Paul the Great was -- but he is a good man. I think you are doing him an injustice. Look at his face when he says Mass - this man really believes in his heart.

What can you say about a guy who attacked Mother Theresa?

I feel sadness for him more than anger, (the anger is there too, don't get me wrong) but the sadness is far greater.

An alternative opinion from a Muslim. While I was teaching in Istanbul, one of my Muslim friends asked me if I'd take him to a Catholic Mass. One Sunday I did that. Before Mass I was showing him around the church. The pamphlet rack had a pamphlet about Maximilian Kolbe (he was a member of the same Order that staffed the Church, although the priests were all Italian). I related the story of Kolbe to my friend. His response was, "That man would be a saint in any religion."

And nothing has changed about the Catholic teaching on the Church. The Catechism reiterates that all Christian churches share in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the truth.

1. The new guy on the Throne of Peter has re-instituted the Latin Mass--which no one under the age of 60 will understand--and that certainly flies in the face of Vatican II.
2. He has said that celibacy in the priesthood will be maintained and the universal goal (there are a few married RC priests, you know).
3. He is not wavering on the use of birth control for RC couples--he has indicated he doesn't even support the "rhythm method.".
4. Charasmatic RC movements such as Cursillo are finding disfavor with him.
5. He is actively cracking down on any relaxation for women to serve the church (even Altar girls will probably get his side-to-side head shake)
6. and God forbid any politician who doesn't oppose Rowe v. Wade because he's going to deny them Eucharist (he has said so).
7. Same with divorced and remarriage, a big NO (and while this might affect Dims like Kennedy and Kerry, it also hits hard at Guilliani and other conservative RCs.

Yes, the guy is brilliant and speaks 10 languages...but, for the life of me, I cannot see how American RCs like you (and others on FR) can rave so about him or his philosophy. Do you really want to see your church (the absolute Mother of all Christianity) be set back 100 years?

You pack a lot of misconceptions into that last post. Taking your 7 points in order:
1) It only "flies in the face" of certain POST-Vatican II trends in the church which were promulgated by liberals using the phrase "the spirit of Vatican II" as a cover for all sorts of mischief with no basis in the ACTUAL documents issued by Vatican II. The Latin mass was ALWAYS legal; Vatican II allowed Vernacular masses but did not MANDATE them. Benedict is clarifying that both shall be made available.
2) So what? The Church has made the practical judgment, based on millennia of experience, that unmarried men make better priests since they can devote themselves much more completely to their priestly duties. This is not a theological issue, because as you note, married men CAN validly be priests, it's just an administrative policy -- you may disagree with it but it's certainly the type of organizational decision the Church may legitimately make.
3) False -- "Natural Family Planning" (which is more sophisticated than "rhythm" since it involves monitoring of the wife's cycle using body temperature and other indicators rather than a calendar) is perfectly licit. When has Benedict said otherwise?
4) What you say contradicts this.
5) Citations please -- why should I believe your speculations about Benedict's "head shakes"?
6) The rules have always been clear on this -- abortion is, according to church law, an abominable crime, one of only 3 which result in automatic excommunication. Are you denying the teaching against abortion? Or are you accepting it but saying that promoting abortion publicly is not sinful? Or are you saying that those who publicly place themselves in a sinful condition still ought to be given Communion? I am very serious about this question, logically I do not see how you can avoid choosing one of my 3 alternatives and I'd really like to know which one represents where you stand.
7) Giuliani and Kennedy and Kerry deserve to be "hit hard" on this -- when they got married in the Church they made promises which they later failed to keep. The Church isn't preventing them from remarrying civilly, it's just refusing to bless such unions. Your horror that the Church might be "set back 100 years" shows that you do not regard the teaching of the Church has having any permanence -- you seem to feel that what the Church calls "marriage" must change to follow what society calls marriage (which raises the question "which society" to begin with, as well as several others).

Well, seriatim . . .

1. Incorrect, on several crucial points. The Latin Mass was never banned, and VCII itself states that Latin was to remain the primary language of the Church. Some American bishops, infected with the zeitgeist, decided that "the Spirit of Vatican II" (which like the Episcopalian's take on Scripture, meant whatever they wanted it to mean) meant the abolition of Latin and the institution of clown masses, guitars, Father Goodtimes, etc. The homosexual recruitment that you find so distasteful (who wouldn't?) followed all that nonsense in the door, because sexual license was part of the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s. By the way, I'm rather younger than 60 and I understand the Latin Mass perfectly well. Even those who never took Latin can avail themselves of a handy Latin/English missal (which is what I did when I was a kid. I was an Episcopalian then, but when I went to Mass I had my book so I knew what was going on.)

2. Although it is not doctrine, celibacy is a valuable discipline of the Church, endorsed by St. Paul among others. And there's a practical reason as well. Anybody who has Methodist relatives knows how harried the life of a Methodist minister's wife is, and how often his children suffer from his divided loyalties (no offense to Methodists, but since my grandfather-in-law was a Methodist minister that is the denomination I can personally speak to.) Married priests of the Roman Rite are usually converts (mostly former ECUSA priests) who were married when they converted. That exception does not change the rule. And since you like John Paul the Great, you do know that he also reaffirmed the rule of priestly celibacy?

3. Darn straight he shouldn't waver on artificial birth control. Much of the tears and heartaches of the "sexual revolution" began when my old denomination was the first Christian church (in 1930 at Lambeth) to permit artificial birth control. It divorces sex from consequences, you see. Abortion was almost certain to follow. BTW, the "rhythm method" is no longer used. NFP is far more reliable. And wrt BXVI's caution on NFP, he correctly observed that it should be used to plan and space children, not forgo them altogether. That is selfish and contrary to the institution of marriage.

4. Cursillo can be dangerous. It's in ECUSA as well and it can go way overboard. If freelance charisms become a substitute for the Sacraments, that is contrary to Church teaching. The ECUSA bishop in my parents' diocese had to rein their chapter in. Almost anything can be abused. I am not familiar, though, with exactly what BXVI said about the charismatic movement, because as a former High Church Episcopalian I'm about as far from that style of worship as you can get.

5. Depends on what you mean by "serve the church". If it's those loons who just 'ordained' a bunch of female 'deacons' and 'priests', I'm with His Holiness 110%. In a liturgical and sacramental church, a female priest is a physical and ontological contradiction. She can't be alter Christus, and she can't be the spouse of the Church. I have experience in this department -- again, because of my time in ECUSA. The ordination of women lets all kinds of other stuff in the door, almost all of it bad.

6. You have it backwards. It's not politicians who don't support Roe v. Wade . . . it's politicians who actively champion the cause of abortion, and then claim to be Catholic in order to get votes. They are living a lie and causing a public scandal, not to mention using the Church for the crass purpose of fooling people into voting for them. Receiving the Eucharist is an acknowledgement that one is in communion with the Church and her teachings -- so the Pope is doing these lying politicians a tremendous favor by saving them from damnation a la 1st Corinthians 11:29.

7. As for divorce and remarriage, I don't think Giuliani even tries to take communion -- I don't think he even goes to church. But if somebody hasn't obtained an annulment they shouldn't be trying to take communion and it's better if they don't receive (see No. 6). And Church law should NOT be dependent upon whether it is advantageous to Republicans OR Democrats -- what a criterion!?!?!

You seem to be really upset that the Pope is Catholic! Ecumenicalism is all very well and good, but if you demand that much of what makes Catholicism Catholic be overturned, it seems it would be simpler just to be something else, like an Episcopalian. They will let you believe and do pretty much whatever you want. Of course, they are also a good example of what happens when you allow people to believe and do pretty much whatever they want . . . but that comes with the territory. The Church doesn't change -- it's people who want her to 'change with the times' so that they can so what the Spirit of the Age encourages them to do. But if the Church does that, she is no longer the Church.

I don't want to see the Church set back 100 years, but around 40 would probably be just about right . . . . < /not entirely kidding >

Wow -- there's an echo in here! I guess we know that GMTA . . . . < g >

Thank you very much for the info on the charismatic movement. I am absolutely unfamiliar with it!

Do I want to see the Catholic Church be set back 100 years? Yes.

As a protestant, with open adoption of homosexual agenda, the utter chaos in religious dogma (some 33,000 different protestant beliefs and growing, all based on individual interpretation of scripture) wouldn’t you like to see protestantism turned back 100 years?