The conference that says the earth is flat!


7:32 pm - September 17th 2010

by Left Outside    


      Share on Tumblr

This is a book that exists. This is a book that exists and is not a joke.

This is a book that says that “Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right” and that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

There’s a conference too!

Sometimes I have so much faith in humanity, but times like these I wonder how we’ve managed to survive these 6014 years.

Sunny adds: Perhaps the BBC can invite these guys over for a discussion to present both sides of the debate, as they frequently do with Global Warming coverage.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Left Outside is a regular contributor to LC. He blogs here and tweets here. From October 2010 to September 2012 he is reading for an MSc in Global History at the London School of Economics and will be one of those metropolitan elite you read so much about.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


You know you guys really want to go. I do.

Errrm hasn’t the Church already admitted that Galileo was right all along? So that makes this lot heretical bastards to be condemned to the fiery lakes of hell etc etc..

would be worth going for the lol-value though.

There is an absolutely straight forward explanation for all this:

“Renowned Italian priest and exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth has released a new book claiming that satanic sects have infiltrated the Vatican and their influence reaches even the College of Cardinals. . . ”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288581

Curious, good find.

Though to be pedantic geocentrism is the view that the sun and planets orbit the earth, not the argument that the earth itself is flat. In an era of relativity, it’s possible to believe that without technically being wrong.

It’s much more mathematically complicated, and slightly pointless given that we know that whatever is orbiting what, it’s the sun that’s the source of the gravity that’s making it happen. We’re all post-Galileans now.

You know geocentrism has nothing to do with the earth being flat, don’t you?

And the other question that springs to mind is, how did you find these people?

oldandrew – it was meant to be a metaphor. Though they probably believe that too.

Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s have found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

Oh, by the way I haven’t missed the fact that once again it’s Catholics (although admittedly barking mad ones) in the firing lines.

Why not Jewish geocentrists?

http://arniegotfryd.com/content/view/198/112/

Or how about a Muslim who actually does believe the earth is flat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F5kYWceTsI&feature=related

When you base everything on the bible and church teaching, if science blows that out of the water you are fucked.

So increasingly the religious nuts have to tell the sheep that science is wrong, and their view (pulled out of their arse) is right.

I’m looking for the word, er, that defines this event. It sums up so much of what is happening in respect of the political and religious right at the moment. What is it?! Erm… of course. Reactionary. That’s the word. Reactionary.

oldandnew,

I seem to recall the arguement about whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa being given a thoroughly good airing on Space.com many years ago. The fact of the matter is that they both revolve around their common centre of gravity, which, by virtue of the humungous disparity in mass is buried deep within the Sun. However the ‘wobble’ that this can cause is one of the main means we use in finding extra solar planets.

I’m pretty sure it was a lot more complicated than that, but that was the general arguement.

I expect it is that arguement that gave Arnie Gotfryd the wriggle room that he needed for that letter.

12. George McLean

Shouldn’t the advert read “Complementary luncheon” (sc. not Complimentary”)? If the promoters can’t even read, what value what they have written?

Sungenis is a nut who has been publicly reprimanded by his bishop for writing drivel about Jews, and was taken to the cleaners by Catholics who found his writings on geocentrism idiotic. That said, it is true that Galileo was wrong – not, as Sungenis thinks, because he believed that the Earth goes round the Sun, but in the reasoning by which he came to that conclusion. Perhaps too subtle a point for an age in which anything other than black/white contrasts between faith and reason, religion and science etc. is considered impossible.

The internet’s a big place, and other than affording yet another opportunity to smear Catholics by association, it’s not obvious to me why you chose this lunatic out of the many to be found online.

oldandrew –

“Catholics (although admittedly barking mad ones)”

Let me see if I’ve got this straight.

It’s OK for you to direct insults at individual Catholics, who don’t claim to represent the Church, for expressing their personal views.

But any criticism of views expressed by people speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Church is an unacceptable ‘personal attack’ on Catholics (and not a legitimate criticism of the beliefs of the Church as an institution and of its representatives).

Not only is the Earth at the centre of the Universe, it’s also upside-down and back-to-front.

would be worth going for the lol-value though.

Agreed, but I don’t think Hell has spectator seating.

“But any criticism of views expressed by people speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Church is an unacceptable ‘personal attack’ on Catholics (and not a legitimate criticism of the beliefs of the Church as an institution and of its representatives).”

Do you think repeating this straw man is going to make it true?

You can’t simply claim that every time Liberal Conspiracy has an orange moment then it is simply “a legitimate criticism of the beliefs of the Church as an institution and of its representatives” no matter how personal, sectarian or bizarre the original attack was.

That said, this post was simply consistent with the usual double standard rather than a full on Loyalist Conspiracy contribution.

@ oldandrew

OK – so let’s agree that sometimes posts and comments on LC represent legitimate criticisim of official Church doctrine and policy, and sometimes they just represent personal attacks on Catholics expressing their individual views.

Given that you think it’s sometimes OK to call Catholics expressing their individual views ‘barking mad’, though, just what is it about *other* people’s ‘personal attacks’ on Catholics you find objectionable?

The fact is, you seem to think it’s OK for you to personally attack Catholics with whom *you* disagree, but not OK for other people to personally attack Catholics with whom *they* disagree.

And you talk about double standards?

“The fact is, you seem to think it’s OK for you to personally attack Catholics with whom *you* disagree, but not OK for other people to personally attack Catholics with whom *they* disagree. And you talk about double standards?”

If you are trying to catch me out then it might help if you could actually indicate what it is you think I’ve said in the past that contradicts what I have said now.

I object to bringing up people’s religion as the basis for personal attacks (mainly due to the hypocrisy about which religions are treated this way). I object when people try and justify personal attacks on Catholics by pretending they are “legitimate criticism of the church as an institution”. I object when personal attacks are used as ad hominem arguments or evasions. I can’t, however, imagine what it is I’ve said about personal attacks that gave the impression that I wouldn’t consider making a passing remark that described modern geocentrics as “barking mad”.

And, by the way, I apologise if that is seen as a personal attack. I claim no insight into their mental health as individuals, I just thought it would be worth making it clear that I do think modern geocentrism is barking mad and worthy of harsh criticism. I apologise if anybody who is geocentric, or indeed anybody who is barking mad, took my remarks personally.

19. Just Visiting

Left Outside

You have form on anti-christian pro-Islam religious bias I’m afraid.
You are damned on the basis of your own blog:

Your sitemap shows only 1 post with Islam and 1 with ‘church’: but

> Islamaphobia on the rise
Is based on the tiniest of anecdotal evidence: “Two Muslim women have claimed they were refused a bus ride because one had her face covered by a veil.”

And ignores things like the hundreds of cases each year in the UK where blind people are refused entry to taxi’s because Islam considers dogs unclean and so Muslim taxi drivers are sometimes reluctant.

In contrast, your one thread with church in the title:
> Galileo was wrong the church was right
Is a mocking piece about some christians whose views are rejected by all their own church.

Lets look deeper – what about where you mention religion within one of your pieces?

> Radical Islam is deeply unattractive to almost everyone, that’s why terrorist attacks are relatively speaking rare.

Rare relative to what? Christian terrorists – Hindu terrorists – budhists terrorists… facts please?
Have you googled and added up the kiilings this week by terrorists who claim religious inspiration? Try it

> Hijackers, mostly from Saudi Arabia, were inspired by a twisted form of Islam to “martyr” themselves to bring holy war against the US and non-Muslims in general.

You make no mention of all the Islamic scholars over the years, and all the current leading Islamic figures that support the Islamic requirement for taking Islam to the world by force if necessary.

You may feel such a viewpoing is ‘twisted’ but that doesn’t stop it being their view.

> there has been a growing level of hostility towards Muslims recently, especially in America

Facts please? Some Islamic leaders expressed concern about a back-lash against Mulsims in the aftermath of incidents like the Fort Hood shooter whjo killed 13 and killed 30 – but no such backlash occurred.

You use extreme language
> fanatical hatered of Islam….

to trivialise a theological view that needs more subtle debate – that:
> the Qu’ran teaches all its advocates to wage jihad or holy war in non-Muslim countries, and acknowledged that on this basis, all devout or practising Muslims in Britain…. converting our country to an Islamic state is the religious mandate of the Qu’ran.

On the Birqa – you trivialise the issue of face hiding by making it about clothes:
> petty and illiberal as banning a particular type of clothing.

@ oldandrew

You genuinely baffle me. You seem to see it as your self appointed mission to bang on on LC about the double standard operative in relation to critcism of the Catholic church whereas other faiths are not treated as harshly. I find your protestations without foundation, as I’ve never noticed a particular unwillingness to criticise other faiths.

Presumably you are a practising Catholic (apologies if I am making unwarranted assumptions) which would mean you adhere to a faith based system many people find just as outlandish as believing that the world is flat.

You have in other threads been vociferous in your defence of the Catholic church when it is attacked for it’s record on issues such as child abuse by priests, often to the point where you simply seemed to be using special pleading that attacks were unfairly singling out the Catholic church because these thing happened in other denominations and in secular setting too.

Even if it were true that there is an anti-Catholic bias, or that some double standard operated (neither of which I accept), it doesn’t lessen the culpability or responsibility of the Catholic church and it’s terrible record in dealing with this particular issue, or indeed with many others.

“You have form on anti-christian pro-Islam religious bias I’m afraid. You are damned on the basis of your own blog”

C’mon. In Britain, the Catholic church now claims 5 million members whereas the community of muslims is less than 2 millions – it was officially 1.6 millions at the time of the census in 2001.

No one here to my recollection regularly promotes or defends al-Qaeda, the jihadists or terrorism. OTOH I can’t recall a stream of news reports connecting the muslim community with the scale of child abuse with which Catholic priests in many countries have been associated.

@ oldandrew

“I object when people try and justify personal attacks on Catholics by pretending they are “legitimate criticism of the church as an institution”.”

OK, fair point, and I think this is the nub of it.

I just wish that when someone offers what they intend to be a criticism of the Church as an institution, based on comments made by people apparently speaking on its behalf (be they Catholic teachers in RE lessons or high-up Church officials), you would do more than just bat those criticisms aside as ‘personal attacks’. Why not spell out just how far the individuals cited do and don’t represent official Church policies and doctrines, so that the element of personal attack and the element of legitimate criticism can be teased apart and the debate can move on?

“You genuinely baffle me. You seem to see it as your self appointed mission to bang on on LC about the double standard operative in relation to critcism of the Catholic church whereas other faiths are not treated as harshly”

Like anybody, I comment on what interests me. I am fascinated by the blatant (and it *is* blatant) religious intolerance of a supposedly “liberal” site, whether that takes the form of attacks on the church or the Pope that aren’t remotely true, a double standard regarding different religions, or the occasional full on sectarian outburst.

Apologies if it sounds like a “self-appointed mission” and I do try to comment on other things as well, but the psychology behind it interests me (as does the psychology behind people who, despite all the evidence, repeatedly assert that it isn’t happening and bother attributing straw men positions to anybody who points it out).

“. I am fascinated by the blatant (and it *is* blatant) religious intolerance of a supposedly “liberal” site, whether that takes the form of attacks on the church or the Pope that aren’t remotely true, a double standard regarding different religions, or the occasional full on sectarian outburst.”

That’s absolute rubbish.

It isn’t UNTRUE that the Catholic church only officially exonerated Galileo in 1992.

It isn’t UNTRUE that the Catholic church runs official courses on exorcism.

The horrific scale of child abuse within the church by Catholic priets isn’t untrue.

22,

Again, you are going to need to be clearer about what you think I’ve said about “personal attacks”. Even where I have criticised personal attacks then I have usually given a reason, or implied a reason, for my objection rather than dismissed it out of hand just because it is a personal attack. If I found all personal attacks equally objectionable I’d spend my lifetime commmenting on here. I earlier mentioned the issues I have with *some* personal attacks. The anecdotes about terrible Catholic teachers were of note to me when somebody claimed that the post they were in didn’t contain any personal attacks and was only “criticising the doctrines, policies and actions of the Catholic Church as an institution”. They also served as an example of the double standard. I don’t think I would have made any other comment about them, though.

“That’s absolute rubbish.”

I think it’s pretty undeniable.

“It isn’t UNTRUE that the Catholic church only officially exonerated Galileo in 1992.”

It isn’t TRUE either.

“It isn’t UNTRUE that the Catholic church runs official courses on exorcism.”

No. So? What is that supposed to justify.

“The horrific scale of child abuse within the church by Catholic priets isn’t untrue.”

I try to be very careful what I say about this, because I will not defend child abuse or anyone found to have covered it up. However, if you want to claim that every criticism made of the Church about the scandal has been honest and fair, that every attempt to implicate people in the scandal has been just, or that the scandal somehow makes hating Catholics alright then you are very much mistaken.

@23

If the Catholic church is being attacked, there is manifestly cause for it. You consistently argue (with to what seems to me very little evidence indeed) that this demonstrates both a double standard, and that it is motivated by anti-Catholic or sectarian motives.

The “psychology” behind it from my point of view is really rather simple. I suppose I’m probably a prime example of what the Pope and the church he heads calls an aggresive atheist. I certainly don’t single the Catholic church out as uniquely evil: I’m happy to criticize any faith for things they do wrong, or indeed secular authorities.

Like many other atheists, agnostics and secular people I’m sick and tired of faith groups whining about how badly treated they are, and why they should be accorded special treatment when it isn’t merited. Of course unwarranted attacks on individuals are unwarranted, and one cannot blame the whole church for the sins of individuals: one can however have legitimate concerns about the policies and actions of the church which one believes to be misguided, wrong headed and in some cases downright evil.

26

“However, if you want to claim that every criticism made of the Church about the scandal has been honest and fair, that every attempt to implicate people in the scandal has been just, or that the scandal somehow makes hating Catholics alright then you are very much mistaken.”

I’ve never heard anyone on this site say that, and no sensible person would deny that there may not have been mistaken or dishonest attempts to do just this in all the discussions internationally on these scandals. You however in discussion of the issues around the Cardinal Hoyos affair went to extraordinary lengths to rubbish the reports, to a degree I (and others) found quite exasperating at the time.

You would not accept there was ANY validity to widespread reports and concern in the media and on-line. You rejected it all as third and fourth hand, to an extent which actually made you look rather odd.

“If the Catholic church is being attacked, there is manifestly cause for it.”

All attacks have good cause? No matter how absurd?

I mean that’s what it comes down to. How ridiculous does an attack have to be before you stop defending it? Just how far does it have to go before the hatred behind it makes you uncomfortable or suspicious?

My experience is that this site will happily going into full-on sectarianism without batting an eyelid, and you personally will go into crazy conspiracy theorist territory, just so long as Catholics are the ones on the recieving end.

29

This is exactly what I meant about it being impossible to take you seriously as a debater!

I didn’t say all attacks had good cause; that would be absurd. Of course some will be untrue, inaccurate or motivated by malice. That doesn’t mean none of the attacks have merit however.

Give me one example of a ridiculous attack I have defended? The Hoyos affair is hardly something that can be dismissed lightly as the work of anti-Catholic extremists.

As for your quote:
“you personally will go into crazy conspiracy theorist territory, just so long as Catholics are the ones on the recieving end.”

this is demontrably untrue. It is you who are the apologist for the shortcomings of the Catholic church, constantly hiding behind the imaginary bogey man of anti-Catholic sectarianism. Issues and scandals like those currently besetting the Catholic church would be of just as much concern if they were perpetrated by Muslims, Protestants or atheists, and I would view them in the same light.

28,

Oh for pity’s sake. Are you still claiming that I should believe that the media all know about evidence in the public domain that the Pope endorsed the decision to cover-up a paedophile, but they all decided not to look into it directly? And nobody ever released it onto the internet or translated it into English?

This was conspiracy theory stuff of the first order. The only extraordinary length I went to was continuing to argue with somebody who had so clearly gone off the deep end.

31

It’s not some “out there” conspiracy theory oldandrew! The letter from Hoyos is authentic, and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s involvement has been widely reported in the press, including mainstream Catholic media organs such as The Tablet. Either Hoyos is a liar (quite possibel of course, but odd that he hasn’t been denounced for it), or Ratzinger was complicit, or all of the mainstream media are a bunch of dupes. Who is the conspiracy theorist now?

You are the one who has gone off the deep end for the continual insistence that it’s all some huge sectarian, anti-Catholic conspiracy.

G.O.

“The anecdotes about terrible Catholic teachers were of note to me when somebody claimed that the post they were in didn’t contain any personal attacks and was only “criticising the doctrines, policies and actions of the Catholic Church as an institution”. ”

But you didn’t explain *why* you thought the criticism was wide of the mark if it was intended to be directed at “the doctrines, policies and actions of the Catholic Church as an institution”.

I’m suggesting that if you’d spelled out just how the views expressed by those teachers on contraception, abortion etc. were at odds with the Church’s official position, that would have enabled us to get clear on the degree to which the post rested on legitimate, on-target criticism of Church doctrine/policy, and the degree to which it rested on irrelevant personal attacks on teachers who happen to be Catholic.

Just dismissing the whole post as being based on personal attacks seemed an inadequate response to me, given that these teachers were (at least in part, surely?) representing the official views of the Church.

@ oldandrew – that last comment (addressed to myself, for some reason!) was actually a reply to one of yours (25).

“The letter from Hoyos is authentic, and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s involvement has been widely reported in the press”

You can try and describe it to make it sound as plausible as you like, but even if we ignore the fact that the press reports all appear to based on one single press agency story, we still have a situation where the incriminating evidence in the reports (a radio interview) has never emerged. Either the reports were misleading or inaccurate, or the entire media is involved in a conspiracy. I won’t apologise for thinking cock up is more likely (and considerably more reasonable) than conspiracy.

@26:

Just to clear up when the Catholic church officially exonerated Galileo:

“In 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo Galilei, one of the founders of modern science, to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. Under threat of torture, Galileo – seen (right) facing his inquisitors – recanted. But as he left the courtroom, he is said to have muttered, ‘all the same, it moves’.

“Last week, 359 years later, the Church finally agreed.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html

“In 1979, Pope John Paul II called for the formal exoneration of Galileo.”
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33691

“Galileo died in 1642. Exactly 350 years later, in 1992, Pope John Paul II formally exonerated Galileo, relieving him posthomously of the church’s proscriptions.”
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/galileo-galilei-wsd/

Official Catholic church college courses on exorcism, including “satanism”, look remarkably like a reversion to the church’s medieval practices. Are we soon to have public burnings of those deemed heretics and sorcerers by the Inquisition – just like olden times before aggressive secularism flourished – while abusive priests get protected by the church?

“But you didn’t explain *why* you thought the criticism was wide of the mark”

Like most people I commented on what interested me.

I am fascinated by the blatant (and it *is* blatant) religious intolerance of a supposedly “liberal” site

Haha – I love it how people project their own opinion on what ‘liberal’ should mean.

Next up on LC: I’m annoyed at how a liberal site like this says it’s idiotic to be racist.

Your point about the supposed agenda against Catholics on LC isn’t based on any evidence. So it doesn’t make me sympathetic to your cause. Sorry.

36,

Historical facts are rarely best established by journalists. I don’t think any serious historian would describe one single event as “exonerating” Galileo. “Retrying Gallileo” by Maurice A. Finoccihiaro describes the history of the Galileo affair from 1633 to 1992. I’d recommend it, but what you won’t find in it is a single date of rehabilitation. 1992 marks the end of Vatican Study Commission but the letter of appointment of that Commission states that “This is not to be the review of the trial or a rehabilitation, but a serene and objectively founded reflection, in the context of today’s historical-cultural epoch”.

“Your point about the supposed agenda against Catholics on LC isn’t based on any evidence.”

Well it’s based on the evidence of loads of anti-Catholic commentary, some of it quite outrageously sectarian, combined with the continual examples of the double standard. You can claim that it is all inadvertant if you like, but saying it isn’t based on evidence is just silly.

@oldandrew

So has the Vatican exonerated Galileo, or not? Do they still think the world goes around the Sun?

do they still not think the world goes round the sun, obvs..!

Well it’s based on the evidence of loads of anti-Catholic commentary

The stuff is eithe anti-religion or anti-Pope. Not anti-Catholic exclusively

“The stuff is eithe anti-religion or anti-Pope. Not anti-Catholic exclusively”

But that’s not true is it?

Far from being anti-religion, one of the anti-Catholic posts (see below) described Protestantism as “sensible religion” while lamenting its lack of zeal in leaving parts of the British Isles with a Catholic population. Another explained that Christians could “Protest the Pope” because objecting to Catholicism was not the same as objecting to Christianity. Neither are being anti-religion. Elsewhere, the double standard is an issue of discrimination between religions, not being against all of them.

Obviously, the judgement as to whether a particular piece of writing is “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Pope” is going to depend on the specific example. But if you don’t have to be anti-Catholic to be anti-Pope, it certainly helps. The two are hardly incompatible and there are too many attempts on this site to pass of blatant examples of the former as simply being the latter.

You’ve lost the benefit of the doubt on this one some time ago. Well about the time you published this classic:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/22/the-pope-the-irish/

Even better with the original footnote praising Oliver Cromwell.

“But as he left the courtroom, he is said to have muttered, ‘all the same, it moves’. ”

I suppose it’s probably worth mentioning that this is not accepted by historians either.

40

“You can claim that it is all inadvertant if you like, but saying it isn’t based on evidence is just silly.”

No, no, no…evidence please. You bang on ad nauseam about the double standards and the outrageous personal attacks… but where’s the evidence?

You are very quick to dismiss direct reports in the media of Hoyos’ radio interview, but somehow hold yourself to a different standard when it comes to producing evidence of this grand anti-Catholic, sectarian conspiracy!

“So has the Vatican exonerated Galileo, or not?”

Depends what you mean by “exonerated”. Certainly, the Church rejected geocentrism a very, very long time ago.

“No, no, no…evidence please. You bang on ad nauseam about the double standards and the outrageous personal attacks… but where’s the evidence?”

In the posts I make those comments on.

Obviously.

35

“the incriminating evidence in the reports (a radio interview) has never emerged”

Will you (for once) try to answer direct questions relating to this matter?

1) Do you accept that the letter written by Hoyos exists, and is genuine? (Bear in mind it has been authenticated by a Vatican source.)

2) Do you think Hoyos’ congratulations to the French Bishop Pican for not turning the paedophile priest were reprehensible? (The direct quote is “” You have acted well and I am pleased to have a colleague in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all other bishops in the world, preferred prison to denouncing his son and priest.” full text at:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/cardinal-john-paul-approved-of-cover-up.html)

3) Do you accept that in Murcia, Spain on 16th April 2010, Hoyos asserted that Pope John Paul II specifically approved of the letter, and of it being distributed to ALL Catholic bishops?

4) Do you think then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who is reported to have been present at the meeting of Cardinals which discussed and approved Hoyos’ letter, should apologise for not protesting as to its content?

None of these are difficult questions.

They require straight answers.

They are not paranoid rantings of anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists, they are widely reported items, so don’t try to hide behind your usual “it’s all hearsay based on one news report” response.

Even a cursory on-line search reveals a plethora of sources on Hoyos’ letter, including the Catholic press.

Stop the apologia for the poor benighted Catholic church.

Answer the questions.

oldandrew –

““But you didn’t explain *why* you thought the criticism was wide of the mark””

Like most people I commented on what interested me.”

Well, OK – but obviously if you’re just going to make assertions without backing them up, you can’t expect them to be taken seriously. Just saying that the writer was personally attacking his teachers, rather than attacking official Church doctrine as expressed by his teachers, doesn’t make it so; some evidence that the views expressed by those teachers do not represent official Church doctrine is required.

Oh, by the way I haven’t missed the fact that once again it’s Catholics (although admittedly barking mad ones) in the firing lines.

Why not Jewish geocentrists?

http://arniegotfryd.com/content/view/198/112/

Or how about a Muslim who actually does believe the earth is flat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F5kYWceTsI&feature=related

Seriously, I don’t mean to come across all Paul Sagar, but fuck off.

People think that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the sun goes round it.

This is funny.

That is it.

Get over it.

No offence, but you are accusing me of being a bigot so please have a nice big “fuck off” from me with cherry sprinkles on top for your troubles.

Just visiting,

Please accept my heartfelt apologies for not blogging on subjects which you find interesting as often as you would like.

“None of these are difficult questions. They require straight answers. ”

3 of them seem unrelated to anything I have ever said or have any opinion on. Only question 4 actually relates to your conspiracy theory, and you already know my position on that, but in case you have forgotten: Your distortion of press reports that regurgitated an agency story that parpahrased a radio interview about a meeting are not something I can take seriously as the basis for an allegation. If you think that there genuinely is a radio interview in the public domain where a Cardinal makes the allegation you describe then you will need to explain where it can be found and why nobody has given it any coverage since the original ambiguous reports.

53

Not good enough. You have consistently tried to rubbish what you describe as the “conspiracy theory” that Ratzinger knew of the Hoyos letter.

The first 3 questions are prefectly reasonable as a background, and presumably you do HAVE an opinion on them? I don’t see why you should be afraid to answer them?

In what way am I distorting press reports about the issue?

The paraphrasing of the Radio report may be from an agency, but why does that “ipso facto” make them something you can’t take seriously? If someone produced an audio copy of the interview (assuming you understtod Spanish as it was in his native Colombia)…would you accept that?

If it is in the public domain, and can be translated and verified, why would the fact that it has not been “picked up” and give coverage since make it any less serious? You think that because people don’t hear something, it must therefore automatically be unreliable? No.. that’s not how it works!

“Just saying that the writer was personally attacking his teachers, rather than attacking official Church doctrine as expressed by his teachers, doesn’t make it so; some evidence that the views expressed by those teachers do not represent official Church doctrine is required.”

If somebody writes about their teachers (negatively) I will assume they are making attacks on their teachers.

If somebody writes about official church doctrine (negatively) I will assume they are making an attack on official Church doctrine.

I objected to the idea that the personal nature of the former could be ignored on the grounds that actually Paul Sagar was only doing the latter. My interest was with the complete denial that it was a personal attack (and, therefore, the double standard involved in it could be ignored).

If you think that I am wrong about the double standard then just find me a Liberal Conspiracy article that starts with anecdotal descriptions of the evils of Jewish or Muslim teachers, but please don’t waste my time pretending that the article with the attacks on those teachers contained no personal attacks at all and that I have to prove some point about doctrine in order to challenge the pretence.

oldandrew,

Looks like you need this too.

Please accept my heartfelt apologies for Liberal Conspiracy’s writers not blogging on subjects which you find interesting as often as you would like.

“In what way am I distorting press reports about the issue?”

By talking about the letter being “discussed and approved” at the meeting. The press reports are more ambiguous, saying it was, in an unspecified way, “the outcome” of the meeting (I think the only variant on that is “result of”).

“The paraphrasing of the Radio report may be from an agency, but why does that “ipso facto” make them something you can’t take seriously?”

The significance of it being from an agency is that it is one source repeated across the press, not the press independently reporting on the same event. It means that it all comes down to whether the original report was an accurate paraphrase. The fact that the allegation in the report was not taken up by the press suggests that the reality was not as incriminating as the initial report.

“If someone produced an audio copy of the interview (assuming you understtod Spanish as it was in his native Colombia)…would you accept that?”

Obviously that would make things considerably more concrete and less desperate and tenuous.

“If it is in the public domain, and can be translated and verified, why would the fact that it has not been “picked up” and give coverage since make it any less serious?”

No, it would just make it really strange. The point is not that things become untrue if they are covered up by a conspiracy of the world’s media; the point is that I don’t believe in a conspiracy by the world’s media and if the plausibility of your allegation hinges on such a conspiracy then I don’t believe it.

58. Just Visiting

Sunny 38

> Your point about the supposed agenda against Catholics on LC isn’t based on any evidence. So it doesn’t make me sympathetic to your cause. Sorry.

Surely this thread itself is evidence.
It’s a non-newsworthy piece of mockery by finding some offbeam whackos who claim to be catholics and mocking their whackiness.

But I can’t find on LC any thread started off that does the same job to Muslim whackos, or Hindu whackoes or Sikh whackos.

QED.

57

You are as usual being tendentious.

The letter was discussed at a top level meeting of Cardinals which the Vatican has confirmed Ratzinger attended. The letter was afterwards sent. What more do you want? If Ratzinger had felt the letter was wrong, why didn’t he object?

“It’s a non-newsworthy piece of mockery by finding some offbeam whackos who claim to be catholics and mocking their whackiness.”

It took the Catholic church until 1992 to officially decide that Galileo wasn’t a whacko after all.

oldandrew

“If somebody writes about their teachers (negatively) I will assume they are making attacks on their teachers.

If somebody writes about official church doctrine (negatively) I will assume they are making an attack on official Church doctrine.”

For goodness’ sake.

The writer didn’t complain about his teachers’ stupidity, or bad breath, or speech impediments, or fondness for kicking puppies. He complained about the views they were expressing, which he took to be the official views of the Church they were employed to represent.

Suppose I were to say: ‘I went off the Tories when the campaigners who knocked on my door told me that they support a cap on immigration, cuts to housing benefit and the scrapping of the Building Schools for the Future program’. Would you consider that a personal attack on the individuals who happened to knock on my door, or an attack on the policies of the Tory Party?

Suppose I were to say: ‘Bloody Marks and Spencers – that shop assistant just told me they can’t give me a refund if I don’t have my receipt.’ Would you consider that a personal attack on a shop assistant, or a criticism of M & S’s returns policy?

Presumably you would accept that these are not personal attacks. (If not, I just don’t understand what you mean by ‘personal attack’.) So why, exactly, is this any different:

‘My contempt for Catholic teaching in particular crystallised in compulsory Religious Education class, around three experiences. The first is of a teacher telling my class that contraception was a sin… (etc.)’

Not sure what Just Visiting et al are trying to imply: is it that they want an anti-Islam piece written everytime there is an anti-Pope article published?? Cos I mean the fact that the Pope is just visiting (boom boom) as Head of State for the first time in a billion years (or something) is a bit newsworthy.

Tell you what:
Next time a fundamentalist Head of an Islamic state visits I’ll definitely submit a critique of his beliefs to LC if it will shut you rightwing trolls up. Not sure when Ahmadinejad is allowed over, though…

63. Just Visiting

Left Outside

in 19 I gave _evidence_ from your blog of the bias of your treatment of Christianity versus Islam – based on the record on what you have written to date.

So your non-answer in 52 – does that mean you’re not denying your bias?

64. Just Visiting

Bob B

I know Galileo is often raised as a case of church vs science – but the historic facts are more subtle – the scientist mainstream of the day also disagreed with Galileo.

And it was not possible in Galileo’s day to prove the heliocentric view by observation (the technology was not up to it yet), so it could not be anything more than a hypothesis at that time.

I’m not sure about the 1992 thing – it seems that was more about making a public apology for the past, than that anything changed that year.

“The letter was discussed at a top level meeting of Cardinals which the Vatican has confirmed Ratzinger attended.”

We know that now do we?

Or is this still the conspiracy theory where you are reinterpreting the media reports based on the agency story paraphraisng the radio interview that mentioned the meeting? Media reports that were never followed up, which, if your interpretation was true, would involve the entire media choosing to ignore evidence that the Pope supported the covering up of a paedophile.

“It took the Catholic church until 1992 to officially decide that Galileo wasn’t a whacko after all.”

As I have already pointed out, that’s not true.

65

More tendentious evasion as usual. What level of “proof” do expect? You set impossibly high standards, and then use the cop out that because the media haven’t followed it up, it can therefore be dismissed. That’s the attitude that allowed widespread abuse of minors in the Catholic church to continue for so long before anything was done about it.

I’m not “re-interpreting” anything. The letter from Hoyos to the Bishop was discussed at a meeting of senior Cardinals. The Vatican has confirmed that Ratzinger was present at that meeting. Hoyos has publically stated that JPII encuraged him to send the letter and distribute it to Catholic bishopes worldwide.

Your continual insistence that none of this is valid because only first hand evidence is acceptable just makes you look odd. Are you suggesting that it’s OK for example to deny that the Pope just visited the country unless you were physically present to see it? Ridiculous.

“More tendentious evasion as usual. What level of “proof” do expect?”

It’s hardly a mystery what level of proof I would like. I would like the text of the radio interview or some other first hand account of the meeting. Your reinterpretation of press reports based on an agency story paraphrasing the interview about the meeting simply isn’t good enough. Not least because, if your reinterpretation were accurate, then you’d still have to explain why the entire news media has conspired to bury the story ever since the initial report.

66

Talk about damning with faint praise!?

The Catholic Church lifted the ban on Galileo’s Dialogue in 1822 (better late than never eh?!), and sort of pardoned him according to various Vatican Councils in the 60’s and 70’s, admitting that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. (Presumably we should just be thankful they didn’t just burn him?).

It WAS in 1992 that the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing, and that JPII accepted that the Earth was not stationary. Still, at least the Catholic church isn’t as bad as the crazies who thing the world is flat eh?!

What is it they say about the joy of a sinner repenting?

68

” Not least because, if your reinterpretation were accurate, then you’d still have to explain why the entire news media has conspired to bury the story ever since the initial report.”

Ah yes of course, it must be a conspiracy, that’s MUCH the most likely explanation.

Becauuse it piqued my interest, I have tried without success to trace a transcript of Hoyos’ interview on RCN Radio in Colombia – so far without success, altho it would no doubt be in Spanish anyway which wouldn’t help most of us here who aren’t fluent in Spanish. It interest me that your reaction is therefore to dismiss it, despite the fact it is directly reported by well respected News Agencies.

There are certainly reports on-line using reported speech confirming a Vatican spokesman saying that Ratzinger was present at the meeting which discussed Hoyos’ letter. Similarly, Hoyos’ attempt to implicate JPII is widely reported by reputable sources.

Your response to all this is much more peculiar than the motives to impute I have, because your “more royal than the king” approach to first hand sources presupposes that a whole host of reputable media sources are dupes. It’s just odd.

“It WAS in 1992 that the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing, and that JPII accepted that the Earth was not stationary.”

Simply not true.

“Ah yes of course, it must be a conspiracy, that’s MUCH the most likely explanation.”

My point is that it’s not the most likely explanation.

The most likely explanation is that whatever Hoyos said, which was paraphrased as the letter being “an outcome” of the meeting, was actually not very incriminating at all.

Certainly, your claim that that there exists out there a radio interview in which a Cardinal says the Pope agreed to the writing of a letter in favour of covering up paedophilia, but no journalist has published the precise allegation, is well into conspiracy theorist territory. Do you really expect people to believe that the whole of the media is protecting the Pope by deliberately ignoring the details of the allegations?

Still, feel free to keep calling me “odd” for doubting this theory.

72

Your opinion on this topic IS odd. You are asking people on here to believe, that the RCN interview either never happened, has been misreported, or doesn’t amount to anything because we don’t have a full transcript of it, and that in any case it should be discounted because no journalist subsequently took up the story. That’s much closer to a loony conspiracy theory than believing that the plethora of mainstream media sources which reported Hoyos’ remarks in the interview haven’t done their homework.

A cursory search online shows the type of outlets who reported on this story: The Independent on 24/04/10, The Tablet 01/05/10 etc, etc. None of these can be regarded as virulently anti-Catholic or sectarian.

The Tablet article makes interesting reading:

“According to the Associated Press, Cardinal Castrillón told Colombia’s RCN radio on 22 April that the decision to send a congratulatory letter to Bishop Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux was the product of a high-level meeting that included the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

“It was a meeting of cardinals,” he said. “Therefore the current Pope [Benedict XVI], who at the time was a cardinal, was present. The Pope [John Paul II] was never at those meetings. However, the Holy Father was indeed present when we spoke about this matter in the council, and the cardinals ruled,” Cardinal Castrillón reportedly said.”

I DON’T expect people to believe the media is protecting the Pope by deliberately ignoring the details of the allegations at all. I was responding to your attempt to discredit the story simply on the persistant and rather illogical basis that it hadn’t been picked up and wasn’t based on primary sources, by which standard we’d have to discount most of the news we hear!

“You are asking people on here to believe, that the RCN interview either never happened, has been misreported, or doesn’t amount to anything because we don’t have a full transcript of it, and that in any case it should be discounted because no journalist subsequently took up the story”

Stop adding straw men. I am suggesting that if we can find no newspaper or internet source in the world willing to publish the actual allegation from the radio interview (as opposed to the ambiguous Associated Press paraphrase), then we have to assume that the original allegation was not as sensational as your fifth-hand interpretation.

If you don’t think this is reasonable, then you need to explain why the allegations are being ignored (presumably a conspiracy).

Telling me it is “odd” that I don’t believe your imaginative fifth-hand version of events is no substitute for being able to answer this point. In fact it appears to be the standard conspiracy theorist tactic of talking up the most unreliable and insubstantial piece of evidence imaginable and then demanding people directly prove it wrong.

What did Hoyos actually say in the radio interview? That’s the key to this and if you can’t tell me then I am afraid that nobody in their right mind is going to believe it was a massively incriminating allegation against the Pope but the press are choosing to ignore it and not to publish the details.

75. Guardian of the Queen's English

@12 George McLean

Shouldn’t the advert read “Complementary luncheon” (sc. not Complimentary”)?

No it shouldn’t. Complimentary is correct.

If the promoters can’t even read, what value what they have written?

Something about motes and beams?

Just Visiting,

I’ve also never explicitly said paedophilia is wrong… maybe I think its okay. How would we know if I’ve never written on it, maybe I’m a big fat paedo-enabler.

Do you see the point I’m making?

I’ll spell it out, just in case.

A blog post saying “paedophilia is wrong” would be boring. What is the point in it? I have no professional experience of paedophilia, I have no personal experience of paedophilia, I have no peculiar insights into paedophilia. I would simply be writing a post saying this is wrong.

Likewise, I have little knowledge of radical Islam. I have no professional experience of radical Islam, I have no personal experience of radical Islam, I have no peculiar insights into radical Islam. I would simply be writing a post saying this is wrong.

This can be expressed in all sorts of technical terms, Comparative Advantage, Value Added Production, but in the end all that you have to know is that on my blog, I write what I want to write. Perhaps I should do a quick post listing things I deplore; slavery, racism, internet pedants and comment thread derailers etc. etc. etc.

74

Good grief, there is nothing ambiguous about the AP press release. It contains direct speech quotes from the RCN Radio interview given by Hoyos, which were widely reported worlwide.

You are asking us to believe that since the AP press release did not reproduce the entire interview, and paraphrased what was said, that it was ambiguous, and therefore the allegation is somehow not sensational.

Your statement: “I am suggesting that if we can find no newspaper or internet source in the world willing to publish the actual allegation from the radio interview” is simply wrong. The allegations from the Radio report were widely published, as any internet search will confirm.

The allegations aren’t being ignored, so your next point isn’t valid. there is no reason to posit a conspiracy: it’s quite obvious why the Vatican would want to bury the story, and would have no interest in giving it legs.

Your final paragraph is priceless. Even if I DID produce a transcript in English I have little doubt you’d find some other spurious objection. The press have already published Hoyos’ attempt to incriminate the Pope, as well as his allegation that there was a Masonic plot to discredit the church. If you won’t take the word of bodies like AP, or the BBC or The Independent, or The Tablet that AP correctly reported Hoyos’ comments to RCN radio, do you similarly reject ANY news reports not involving first hand interview/video?

78. Just Visiting

Left Outside 76

But you DID write about radical Islam, Muslims, the Birqa.
So strange to say you are not interested in it.

You did start off this mocking thread about some whacko christians.

I quoted in 19 what you have written.

Either you have to explain why what you wrote does not represent a bias – ie answer the specifics of 19.

Or admit that your writing, on the evidence of what you have written to date, is indeed showing a religious bias in your writing.

So your fundamental accusation is that I “have form on [sic] anti-christian pro-Islam religious bias.”

I have written 485 posts, around half of which are what I’d call substantive posts, at most 5% mention religion at all. Your sample size is too small to draw any reliable conclusions.

So really, we can consider this matter closed can’t we? There is no legitimate way, no conceivable method you can use to ascribe a bias to me by using such a small sample.

Please answer this point directly. Do you admit your sample size is too small?

“But you DID write about radical Islam, Muslims, the Birqa.”

No, that post is about illiberal interventions being dressed up in the language of liberalism.

You see everything in terms of Islam, as everyone who also comments here will attest almost every comment you leave regards Islam even when it is at best tangential to the post you are commenting on (like right now). I wrote a post about the language of liberalism and authoritarianism, but all you see is Islam Islam Islam. Like I said in that post “I don’t want to dwell on the politics of this”, and I do not, I talk about how authoritarians like to pretend to be liberals.

“It contains direct speech quotes from the RCN Radio interview given by Hoyos, which were widely reported worlwide.”

I’ve been having trouble getting my head round the fact that you think such an ambiguous claim as the letter being “a product” of the meeting, which could be paraphrasing Hoyos describing almost any connection between the letter and the meeting, indicates direct approval of the letter by all present at the meeting.

It is only in your last two comments that it’s begun to dawn on me that you might be muddling this with the content of the direct quotation.

Are you under the impression that in the quotation “the Holy Father was indeed present when we spoke about this matter in the council, and the cardinals ruled” then “the Holy Father” refers to the current Pope, “in the council” refers to the meeting and that the cardinals ruled on the letter?

81. Just Visiting

Left Outside 79

Most of your blog posts do not cover religion – so yes I’d agree that this implies religion is not one of your hot buttons.

But if I understand your point – you’re saying that indeed what you have to date written about Islam and other faiths is one sided; but that the sample size is too small to have statistical significance?

I’m no mathematician, so I won’t go there.

I wonder what a statistician would say if say you again bring up Christian whackos out of the blue – but have still not done the same over Muslim whackos – so it’s 2:0 against the christians?
Or if it reaches 3:0?
I guess the future of your blog will be the acid test.

82. Just Visiting

Left Outside

> You see everything in terms of Islam

You’re nearly correct – I am interested here on LC how the different religions get quite different treatment.
How many posters say they dislike all religions equally, but then act contrary to that by critical and often mockingly so of one (usually christianity) whilst being either silent or defensive of another (eg Islam).

You own blog history fits that pattern exactly (small statistics not withstanding).

I just spent an hour on a Humanist blog, and I saw a much more rounded balance than I see on LC.

That’s noteworthy, in my view. Apologies if it’s not of interest to you.

80

Again, you manage to be both dismissive that there could possibly be any problem, and yet evasive about really getting involved in a discussion because you have already convinced yourself there is nothing to this affair.

I’ve never said that being present at the meeting of Cardinals indicated direct approval of the letter by all present at the meeting. I suppose it’s too much to expect the Vatican or any of those involved to be open about what actually took place. We do “know” from reports that the Vatican have confirmed Ratzinger was present at the meeting. If he didn’t directly approve of the letter, why didn’t he speak out? Or perhaps he was asleep? Don’t you think we at least deserve to be told?

And yes, I’m aware Hoyos is referring to the current Pope (then still Cardinal Ratzinger) as being present in the council, as confirmed by a Vatican spokesman and widely reported in the media. Hoyos subsequently went on (yes, according to press reports you give no credence to…we’ve been there already) implicate the Pope at the time, i.e. JPII for agreeing with the content of the letter, and encouraging him to send it to Catholic Bishops worldwide.

“I suppose it’s too much to expect the Vatican or any of those involved to be open about what actually took place. We do “know” from reports that the Vatican have confirmed Ratzinger was present at the meeting. If he didn’t directly approve of the letter, why didn’t he speak out? Or perhaps he was asleep? Don’t you think we at least deserve to be told?”

Well this is what conspiracy theorists always do, having come up with some baseless claim based on non-evidence they say “why hasn’t this been denied?” If an allegation is silly enough then nobody will bother to deny it, or if they do it won’t even be reported. You appear to be using the fact that your claims are a complete non-story as grounds for blaming the church for not clearing the matter up. A saner explanation would be that it is a non-story because, when you look into it properly, then there is nothing worth reporting.

“And yes, I’m aware Hoyos is referring to the current Pope (then still Cardinal Ratzinger) as being present in the council, as confirmed by a Vatican spokesman and widely reported in the media.”

Okay, you have got this completely muddled. The current Pope attended the *meetings*. John Paul II was reported as attending the council but not the meetings.

84 oldandrew

Apologies for the council muddle: I thought the council you were referring to was the cardinals meeting which Ratzinger attended? I knew from the reports that JPII was not present at the cardinals meeting.

Tho no doubt now you’re going to tell me we can’t believe there actually was a cardinals meeting because we only have repots from news agencies and 3rd parties?

If your evasions weren’t so blatant, and the subject matter so serious, you would actually be funny.

84

“A saner explanation would be that it is a non-story because, when you look into it properly, then there is nothing worth reporting.”

It is of course symptomatic of someone in denial that they can regard it as a “non-story” that the current Pope when a cardinal was present at a meeting where the Hoyos letter was discussed, and raised NO objection to it!

Neither you, I or the public at large know whether the claim that Ratzinger is implicated is baseless: that’s the difference between you and I. You simply dismiss it as baseless out of hand and an blithely write it off as an anti-Catholic conspiracy.

I on the other hand would like it to be explained, whilst making no pre judgement as to whether it is baseless or not.

Your attitude reeks of the high handed arrogance which got the church into this mess in the first place.

“It is of course symptomatic of someone in denial that they can regard it as a
“non-story” that the current Pope when a cardinal was present at a meeting where
the Hoyos letter was discussed, and raised NO objection to it!”

Do you think that if you keep claiming this then it will become fact?

All we know is that Hoyos said something in a radio interview that a Press Association journalist described as indicating the letter was “a product of” the meeting.

We don’t know exactly what that means, it’s a paraphrase not a direct quotation, but the fact that nobody has bothered to publish any more details means your interpretation is highly unlikely to be correct (unless you think the press is conspiring to hide the truth).

These reflections of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on Galileo were published in 1990:
http://ncronline.org/node/11541

87

Once again, no I don’t think that the allegation automatically makes it a fact, nor do I think that.

What is it I am supposed to be claiming? All I have said is that given the fact he is now Pope, some clarification is necessary in relation to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s actions (or lack of action) with respect to the Hoyos letter. Your continual claims that there is nothing to this affair is unconvincing.

It’s quite simple, he either approved of the contents of the letter which makes him equally culpable with Hoyos, he disapproved of the letter but said nothing which makes him a coward and an enabler, or perhaps he was just asleep or not paying attention.

Notice that despite your grandiose and increasingly hysterical attacks I’m not pre-judging anything. If there is indeed nothing to these claims, the Vatican could easily clarify matters.

As for your claim: “the fact that nobody has bothered to publish any more details means your interpretation is highly unlikely to be correct (unless you think the press is conspiring to hide the truth).” this is another obfuscation you regularly trot out.

I can see why it would be more comfortable for the Church, and you since you seem so convinced for some reason that it is somehow wrong to even investigate these allegations further, to believe that since it is “highly unlikely” to be correct, the whole thing should just be dropped.

You take great comfort that nobody has bothered to publish more details about the affair, then make the illogical jump that this makes it unlikely to be true. Perhaps it is unlikely, but why are you so afraid of it being clarified? I do not now, and never maintained that I thought it was a press conspiracy to hide the truth, though given the record of the Church I’d be more prepared that it was “highly likely” they were hiding something.

“What is it I am supposed to be claiming? All I have said is that given the fact he is now Pope, some clarification is necessary in relation to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s actions (or lack of action) with respect to the Hoyos letter. ”

This is what conspiracy theorists always do when their arguments start falling apart. They start claiming that they aren’t accusing anybody of anything and they are just asking questions.

If your allegation was solid enough for someone in the media to start asking the Vatican about it then you probably would have get your clarification. If it remains the exclusive interest of internet conspiracy theorists then you are unlikely to get your clarification, because some things don’t even merit a denial. I hope that you eventually understand why rational people tend to ignore this type of nonsense. I hope that next time I post a comment that mentions the Catholic church then we can go without you bringing this nonsense up again.

90

Another doomed attempt by one of the many enablers and deniers to equate legitimate concern with crazy conspiract theorists. Nobody is buying the obfuscation. If there is a double standard operating here, it relates to the special treatment of the Catholic church in relation to the abuse of children: if these things had been covered up and obstructed in the same way by any secular body, the authorities would have gone through them like a dose of salts.

Sadly it’s people like you who have contributed to the sorry state the Church finds itself in by denying there is a problem, and trying to label anyone concerned a conspiracy theorist.

I’ll repeat it again since you obviously need things explained to you a number of times. These aren’t my allegations. They are allegations widely reported in the media which you write off as hearsay, and of course the allegations of one of the highest ranking Cardinals, which you also write off as hearsay.

You obviously havent bothered looking at the coverage of this affair in the media: it couldn’t be described by any reasonable person as the work of internet conspiracy theorists. Your frantic efforts to absolve the heirarchy of any wrongdoing can be seen for what they are: the arrogant dismissal of those who would rather cover abuse up than see it exposed.

“These aren’t my allegations. They are allegations widely reported in the media which you write off as hearsay, and of course the allegations of one of the highest ranking Cardinals, which you also write off as hearsay.”

Really, what did he say?

Oh yeah I forgot, you don’t know, and you are just filling in the gaps with a bizarre fantasy where he said something really sensational but the media conspire to hide the details, never reporting anything more than one ambiguous paraphrase from a press agency.

92

You are in total denial. Direct speech quotes from his speech in Murcia are all over the internet, and have been picked up internationally from Spanish newspapers and News Agencies. Nobody has to take my word or my paraphrases for it – a simple google search is enough!

And yet, you ask us to believe that he never said them? You are deluded. You’ll be telling us next that you don’t believe the letter he sent to Bishop Picard exists.

92,

I googled “Hoyos Murica letter”.

I can’t find anything about Hoyos’ letter being agreed at a meeting with the current Pope present.

I guess that gives us three options:

1) It is there but I have missed it.
2) You have imagined it.
3) You know full well it isn’t there, but you are doing that thing you do from time to time where you change the subject from the allegation against the current Pope, to Hoyos saying the previous Pope approved the letter.

94 oldandrew

Oh good grief, what will it take?

Presumably nothing short of personal audiences with Hoyos and His Holiness? Would a confession signed in the Cardinals blood be enough?

The below quote is from The Tablet, (that well known nest of anti-Catholicism… errr, no wait…);

“CARDINAL DARÍO Castrillón Hoyos has claimed that Pope Benedict XVI, as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), was involved in a 2001 decision to praise a French bishop for protecting a priest convicted of raping a boy and sexually assaulting 10 others.

According to the Associated Press, Cardinal Castrillón told Colombia’s RCN radio on 22 April that the decision to send a congratulatory letter to Bishop Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux was the product of a high-level meeting that included the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

“It was a meeting of cardinals,” he said. “Therefore the current Pope [Benedict XVI], who at the time was a cardinal, was present. The Pope [John Paul II] was never at those meetings. However, the Holy Father was indeed present when we spoke about this matter in the council, and the cardinals ruled,” Cardinal Castrillón reportedly said.

It is the second time that the Colombian-born cardinal who was Prefect for the Congregation for Clergy in 2001 has claimed that Pope John Paul authorised his letter to Bishop Pican but the first time that he has attempted to implicate the former Cardinal Ratzinger in the controversial decision. Cardinal Ratzinger’s attendance at such a meeting would be normal. He and Cardinal Castrillón would have met regularly at the time as fellow members of several Vatican congregations.”

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/14646

So, let’s deal with your ad hominems above one by one shall we:

1) Yes, you missed it. No doubt you didn’t try very hard, or perhaps you just don’t understand internet searches very well?
2) No, I didn’t imagine it. I could find other similar items to the one above, but if you dismiss the original AP report, it says more about your mental health than mine.
3) No again. It is there, as I’ve just demonstrated – you just don’t want to look too hard in case your prejudices are proven wrong. I’m not changing the subject. Hoyos’ attempts to implicate the previous Pope are a matter of record, and yet you won’t even accept those as valid, which just makes you look like a crank. It’s hardly an “allegation” that the current Pope was there, Hoyos has stated as much.

He is Cardinal Castrillon, not Cardinal Hoyos. Just as Perez de Cuellar was Mr Perez, not Mr de Cuellar.

96

Thanks for the clarification.

94,

That appears to be a newspaper article based on the same press agency report we have discussed dozens of times before, and not, as requested, a direct quotation from Hoyos’ speech in Murcia confirming that the meeting agreed to the letter.

You claimed that such a quotation could be found by “a simple Google search”. Can you please find the quotation or confirm that you could not find it?

Sorry, that comment (98) was a reply to “95” not “94”

98 oldandrew

No, as usual you are answering the question you wished I had asked, rahter than the one I actually asked. Are you a career politician perhaps?

As far as I can ascertain from a fairly exhaustive search there is no transcript of Castrillon’s address to the Murcia conference for me to give you. As the speech was at the Catholic University in Murcia, I’m guessing the speech would have been in Spanish, so even if such a transcript were available, it wouldn’t do us much good.

However, as previously stated, the speech is widely reported in mainstream media outlets. From the beginning you have maintained this makes it valueless, as is the case for the AP News Agency report of his comments on RCN Radio in Colombia.

I suggest to you however that this is simply pettyfogging. You are asking us to accept either that neither of these things happened, or that they have been mis-reported. It is vanishingly unlikely that this is the case: if reputable news agencies like AP, Verdad in Spain, and the many newspapers and other media outlets who published the story did not believe in their veracity, they would not have published.

Similarly, if the comments reported were not true, why on earth would Castrillon or the Vatican not have sued, or issued denials? Because of course he DID make these statements, irrespective of whether you beleive them to be true.

Your desperation is astounding.

“As far as I can ascertain from a fairly exhaustive search there is no transcript of Castrillon’s address to the Murcia conference for me to give you. As the speech was at the Catholic University in Murcia, I’m guessing the speech would have been in Spanish, so even if such a transcript were available, it wouldn’t do us much good.”

So, just to confirm, you were mistaken when you said:

“Direct speech quotes from his speech in Murcia are all over the internet, and have been picked up internationally from Spanish newspapers and News Agencies. Nobody has to take my word or my paraphrases for it – a simple google search is enough! And yet, you ask us to believe that he never said them? You are deluded.”

101

No, they are presented as direct speech quotations in the reports. Any reasonable person (including the many people blogging about the matter both for and against) are quite happy to accept the basic facts as reported.

Short of a transcript of his remarks, video or sound recording of the remarks, or a direct persona meeting with Catrillon, what “proof” would you accept. If a BBC reporter had interviewed him and reported these remarks, they’d still be “second hand”, so by your lights we could dismiss them? Why do you insist on rejecting the veracity of the reporting of his remarks, just because they come from a News Agency?

Why must we assume that only your outlook is valid, and that everyone else is wrong? It’s back to your old conspiracy theory paranoia.

102,

“No, they are presented as direct speech quotations in the reports.”

Please can you identify the reports where, in direct quotations from his speech at Murcia, Hoyos says that the meeting agreed the letter?

If you cannot, can you please acknowledge that these quotations could not be found, as claimed, by a simple google search?

103 oldandrew

Who appointed you king of the internet?

Do you homework yourself. The fact that you are too idle or too technologically challenged to do some research yourself only shows that your mind is already made up oldandrew. You simply don’t WANT to find anything which challenges your absolute conviction that your position is correct.

There is little value in me cutting and pasting lots of links from the internet: anyone who is that interesed is capable of doing the research, and making their own mind up. The quotes which can be found are in direct quotes.

As pointed out in the other thread on the Hari speech, where you demanded a translation of the RCN radio interview, try being pro-active for a change. If you don’t want people to write you off as a troll, don’t sit on the sidelines throwing rocks and grunting.

104,

Oh for pity’s sake.

The point is that I did “the research” and your evidence wasn’t there.

Now are you going to admit that it’s not there, or just pretend that there is evidence out there which proves you right but you can’t be bothered to locate it for us?

105 oldandrew

No, I’m saying that I am not going to humour you (and bore just about everyone else) providing “evidence” for stuff that any other reasonable person would accept, just on your crazy whim that a) it isn’t first hand, and b) there will be a smoking gun with Ratzinger’s fingerprints on it.

You are not now, and never have been, interested in engaging in a proper deabte on this issue. You are amongst those apoligists and enablers who are all sadly all too common on-line who can tolerate no criticism of the church, and in particular the Pope, because you have totally “bought in” to the clericalism which tolerated the covering up of abuse for decades.

You will perform whatever mental gymnastics are required to insulate the leadership of the church from criticism, let alone accountability for their appalling record.

If Ratzinger was present at the meeting from whence Catrillon’s letter to Picard came (stop splitting hairs about whether it was discussed, agreed or whatever…it needs explanation) he needs to account for his failure to stop it or condemn it to a sceptical public and community of believers.

If he wasn’t present, Castrillon should be exposed for what he is.

Stop avoiding the issues and concentrate on having the church (for once) come clean.

106,

So, just to check, you are claiming that the evidence you talked about earlier exists, is easily found, but you won’t let me know what it is because that would be “humouring” me?

107 oldandrew

I’m telling you to get off your arse and do some reserach of your own. There is plenty of it on-line. I’m not a fan of cutting and pasting lists of links to other sources on line. Any reasonably intelligent person can do that for yourself.

In anycase, you would simply revert with your usual tired mantra that it’s all fourth and fifth hand, and there’s no substance to it. You’re consistant failure to engage in any meaningful debate simply demonstrates your trollishness.

Even when you HAVE been presented with a first hand source (reports based on which every other reasonable person would accept) your knee jerk reaction is still to try and rubbish it, then have the effrontery to try and put the onus on ME for having a 21 minute radio interview in Spanish transcribed.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Rod Dreher which applies to you in spades:

“Many laymen were quite willing to collaborate with evil to keep a truth they found intolerable to contemplate buried. Some still are. It’s human nature. You can see it every day, if you look.”

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/04/cardinal-john-paul-approved-of-cover-up.html#ixzz10SoPam00

108,

Well, please let me know if you ever decide to identify the evidence that you think can be easily found.

Until then, goodbye.

110 oldandrew

Yeah, I though as much: trollish to the last.

Let us know when you have the RCN radio interview translated and have to eat crow about Castrillon’s comments all being imaginary or unreliable because they were third or fouth hand… because, of course that’s SO much more likely than you just being owned! LOL

In your febrile mind you actually thing that it’s more likely that Associated Press and all the other mainstream news sources misreported Catrillon’s comments, becuase it suits your agenda.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Bob Ashworth

    RT @libcon: The conference that says the earth is flat! http://bit.ly/cIEtNS

  2. sunny hundal

    The conference that says Galileo was wrong and Sun revolves around the earth http://t.co/blBZ91x (by @leftoutside)

  3. Moonbootica

    RT @sunny_hundal: The conference that says Galileo was wrong and Sun revolves around the earth http://t.co/blBZ91x (by @leftoutside)

  4. Nik Burns

    RT @oscarduck: You can't make this up! Brilliant. RT @TomHarrisMP I wonder if @StewartCowan is attending this? http://bit.ly/c3xXmL

  5. Dave Howard

    RT @libcon: The conference that says the earth is flat! http://bit.ly/cIEtNS

  6. Mili

    The earth is flat! http://bit.ly/cwpgNa

  7. Derek Thomas

    RT @libcon: The conference that says the earth is flat! http://bit.ly/cIEtNS





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.