The Great Catholic Cover-Up: The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it, by Christopher Hitchens
... Concerning the most recent revelations about the steady complicity of the Vatican in the ongoing—indeed endless—scandal of child rape, a few days later a spokesman for the Holy See made a concession in the guise of a denial. It was clear, said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, that an attempt was being made "to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse." He stupidly went on to say that "those efforts have failed."
He was wrong twice ...
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Hitchens on the Pope.
Hitchens is a great favorite of mine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting article.
Hitchens, to me, is one of those incredibly talented writers who makes some good points and sometimes drowns in his own ideas. Often, when I read articles like this, I see him reaching into something important and then missing some bigger points. His remarks at the end of the article, referring to Ratzinger/Benedict as a 'mediocre, Bavarian bureaucrat,' miss the point about Ratzinger/Benedict. The current Pope is, at his core, a university or seminary professor. His is a creature of academia, and has always been.
Additionally, the abuse allegations, as Hitchens does point out, are a widespread problem within the Roman Catholic Church. Having spent 8 years within the seminary system, the current problems are not even remotely surprising. Actually, the currently public issues are not even scratching the surface of clerical misconduct because they are only focusing on behavior that was illegal. If they ever venture into the land of clergy abuse with adults, all hell will break lose. (It's ironic that the so-called 'liberal' denominations have significantly tighter standards than almost everyone else on this.)
Two things about Ratzinger/Benedict, and this abuse issues that stand out. His leadership in Germany, as an Archbishop on this issue was pretty much standard operating procedure. What he did was what was done. It was bad leadership, obviously, but he was following 'company policy.'
When he served John Paul II and was a significant part of the cover up, he was obviously, complicit, but he was also the person who ran cover for his boss. John Paul II died a man who left a cynical legacy of covering this up. The current Pope, as Thomas Doyle so aptly states, is a micro-manager; but so was his predecessor. John Paul effectively crushed a great deal of theological dialogue in Roman Catholic seminaries. People in this part of the world are sell aware of the Southern Baptist clampdown at Southern Seminary; that FOLLOWED purges in Roman Catholic seminaries.
The thing that Hitchens seems to state at the end is that this was and has been a reign of ineptitude. It isn't. It is, and follows, a distinct effort to restore Roman Catholicism to something medieval, and something that almost seems to cry out for another Martin Luther.
I must have missed the press conference that ROCK held to demand & support special restrictive laws and zoning ordinances on churches. Did anybody attend?
John, I take your larger point about the fundamentalist direction of Roman Catholicism since Vatican II and that Ratzinger/Benedict was just a loyal foot soldier. HE is now the Pope however. How is a return to fundamentalist (Mediveal) Catholicism as effected by Benedict, John Paul et al, at the same time civil society to rising in revulsion at sexual abuse of children, going to impact this Pope? I think Hitchens is on to a brilliant line of questioning.
We’ve been trying to figure out the line with the Polygamist out west too. How does CIVIL society protect children? When I read this that is the question I’m left with?
In France they can’t decide whether to outlaw the Burqa...
Post a Comment