RE: Christopher Hitchens talks on Fox about Pope Scandal
March 30, 2010 at 1:25 am
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2010 at 1:29 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
(March 30, 2010 at 12:17 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Hitchens comment at the end was sensationalist and unhelpful.
Sensationalist? How on earth could he possibly sensationalise that appalling mess? Why on earth should Hitchens even try to be helpful? I think his agenda is clear enough; to make the Pope and other criminals in the Church responsible for their actions.The whole catastrophe goes to the issue of the church being above the law.
The Pope and all other clergy had both a legal and moral responsibility to report those crimes to the civil authorities immediately they became aware ,yet apparently NONE did. They chose instead to protect the institution of the Church.
The news woman's poor choice of words trivialised the whole issue; it's not 'curious' (IR 'interesting' or 'unusual'),it's a tragedy of Greek proportions. Arguably the greatest moral dilemma the Church has been forced to face since WW 2. The Church is nothing if not expert at protecting its own interests.So it bloody well should ;be it's had 2000 years practice.
I think Hitchens may be mistaken about what can be done to Ratty: As the autocratic head of state of a theocracy, he's pretty much legally bullet proof. (The Vatican is a sovereign State)
