Friday, March 26, 2010

"lurid prose is hardly a substitute for sound research" - another writer pulverises Christopher Hitchens

"Christopher Hitchens' venomous attack on Pope Benedict XVI1 is a revelation that deserves wider attention. Were it not for its appearance in the National Post, it would be difficult to believe that a reputable newspaper would publish such absurdity."

In a brilliant piece of writing, Sean Murphy takes Christopher Hitchens' hopelessly bad article, "the great Catholic cover up" brick by painstaking brick here.

I did something similar here a few days ago.

Hat tip: Londiniensis.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Jim Denham said...

The day *any* Catholic can even lay a glove on C. Hitchens, is the day I'll eat my pants. You apologists for child abuse simply have NO RIGHT to even question what atheists like C. Hitchens have to say. You lot, you apologists for CHILD ABUSE have placed youreselves beyond decent debate. C. Hitchens has your number. So have I. Child abuse and its cover-up is simply beyond the pale. The Catholic Church and its present Pope have placed themselves beyond civilised discourse.

And you have the audacity to question what C. Hitchens says?

Get real!

And stop trying to explain away for the vilest acts imaginable.

3/27/2010 2:25 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

That's all very impassioned, Jim but could you show me where and how I or anyone else are apologists for child abuse?

A quotation will do.

In your own time.

3/27/2010 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Jim Denham said...

Your willingness to justify and excuse the Catholic church's systematic accomodation and concealment of paedophilia is, simply despicable and beneath contempt. How are you (like your filthy church) an apologist for child abuse? Explain this away:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/pope-paedophile-priests-italy

3/27/2010 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Jim Denham said...

...oh yes: there's also this for you to explain away:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8588427.stm

3/27/2010 9:04 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Jim,

Let's start at the beginning. I do not accept that the Church has systematically accomodated and concealed paedophilia. Why do I not accept that? Because if you look at the historical record, I think it's clear that her actions mirrored the attitudes prevalent in the liberal professions at the time.

Your use of the word "systematic" along with the media's references to "floods" of sex abuse cases, conjures up a picture of mass sex-abuse in the Church, to which I feel bound to point out that the actual numbers of priests and religious convicted or plausibly accused (by plausibly accused I mean the accusations would have stood up to the standard of proof required in a criminal case, that is beyond reasonable doubt) of sex-abuse crimes are incredibly low - 0.4% in England and Wales, 1.7% in the US according to the Chicago Study.

The Father Laurence Murphy story is incredibly sad but for some reason you don't feel enraged that the civil authorities dropped their charges against him, presumably due to a lack of evidence.

Pointing these things out isn't a defence of child-abuse. It's fair comment and a legitimate examination of the media's irresponsible treatment of these stories.

I'm sure you'd be quite willing to assail the press for witch hunts and sensationalist reportage and comment in other instances, Jim. For some reason though, you apply different standards when the shoddy treatment concerns the Church. Why is this?

3/28/2010 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Jim Dengham said...

Because the Catholic Church systematically covers up and minimalises child abuse: the evidence is now overwhelming, including from Catholics. The vigour and speed with which the Vatican has moved to defend the Pope is in sharp and shameful contrast to its denial, deceit and complicity in child abuse in Ireland, America, and throughout the world. Catholics evedrywhere should hang their heads in shame - unless they have personally done someting to expose this scandal:

http://www.colmogorman.com

I find it almost unbelievable that so-called "leftists" - whatever their personal beliefs - can still attempt to defend the Catholic Church. My view (which I shall be putting forward on Shiraz Socialist shortly)is that the Catholic Church must now be barred from any dealings with minors and all Catholic schools must be closed or secularised. Priests and nuns must be barred from any contacty with minors and the Catholic Church must be treated like Islamist fundamentalists: a threat (not unlike fascism) to humanity that must be watched, contained and eventually, defeated and destroyed.

3/28/2010 11:59 AM  
OpenID splinteredsunrise said...

I assume the AWL will now be calling for Catholics to be deported to France. Again.

3/28/2010 3:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home