Christopher Hitchens talks on Fox about Pope Scandal

[tavarish]

"Directly responsible" is doing it yourself. I've followed the stories a bit... take the blind kids - the community itself did the hiding initially, and still wanted to protect the priest many years later ...is this not true? If so, how is any indirect decision made by a very distant overseer making that overseer "directly responsible"?

You're not understanding this.

1 priest rapes a kid. The word gets out.

The Pope finds out about it, does nothing but relocate the priests who can, in turn, rape again.

The priest rapes again and gets relocated.

Multiply that for all the priests who fucked little kids, and you still think that the Pope's not directly responsible for letting rapists and torturers loose? Why aren't these shits in jail again?

[fr0d0]

Not semantics - I thought a lot about my reaction to the words, and that's how I honestly took it.

You're still sensationalising it Tav. I've no interest in letting guilty people off. I just want to know the truth. I don't want to be the lynch mob. I want to know the facts.

[Tiberius]

Not semantics - I thought a lot about my reaction to the words, and that's how I honestly took it.

It clearly is semantics. You think that "directly responsible" means the person committed the crime, I say it is a far looser term than that.

Going by your definition, sure, I think what Hitchens said is sensationalist. However, knowing Hitchens, I don't think he believes that the Pope actually abused children, hence why I argued that he is using a looser definition of the term. I've seen Hitchens speak about child abuse in the Catholic church before, and I've never seen him claim that the Pope did the abuse. What I have seen (time and time again) is him claim that the Pope is partly responsible, and should apologise and see that those responsible are brought to justice.

So, do you accept that your claim is possibly not what Hitchens meant, and that he was using a looser meaning of the phrase?

[fr0d0]

I always accepted that POV, and considered it very carefully before making the accusation. I can certainly understand how passions are invoked with such an emotive subject. I'd probably be the same myself.

[Minimalist]

I want to know the facts.

Are you sure? It looks like you are twisting yourself into knots to avoid them.

[fr0d0]

I take that seriously Min coz you should know!

[tavarish]

An organization with the slogan "No child's behind left."

That was hilarious.

[Tiberius]

I don't know. I think it was quite sensationalist. Doesn't Hitchens know that the actual slogan of the Church is nothing like that?!?

</fr0d0>

[tavarish]

I don't know. I think it was quite sensationalist. Doesn't Hitchens know that the actual slogan of the Church is nothing like that?!?

</fr0d0>

It's a bit easier to fathom than "You're going to hell"

[Minimalist]

I take that seriously Min coz you should know!

It is not as apparent as you seem to think it is.

How many sex scandals in how many countries is it going to take before you admit that there is a systemic problem?