Die a madman or a Roman Catholic

Fr. Rutler is demonstrating true knighthood, standing tall but only under the power of the cross. Hitchens ran out of logic and resorted to wailing and gnashing of teeth, how very sad.
Under the Mercy,
Matthew S

I vote for Hitchens conversion "Saint Paul Part Deux".

Remember he finds people boring so he drinks (so saith Mr. Hitchens ).

Fr. Rutler wasn't boring - therefore if he's consistent he'll find him interesting. :)

Bl Theresa must be praying very hard for him.

Hope, pray, don't worry. He'll make it - even if he does make an ass out of himself along the way.

Don't we all? :)

Thanks for posting this. Let's pray for Hitchens's conversion.

One has no difficulty in proposing that Hitchens was merely the voice-over of a far nastier critter who was doing the talking/screeching...

Now that's an exchange I would have paid to watch!

Thanks for the post, Jeff.

In reference to the commentary, that's the first time I've read that Fr. Mychal Judge had been killed by a body that had fallen from one of the WTC buildings.

I wondered when someone would call Hitchens on the fact that he shows up stinking at public appearances. People have been giving him a pass for so long and, frankly, it seems as if he's been counting on the professionalism or charity of others to cover for him.

I read Hitchens' response to an enquiry: "You probably know that the charge against me is a standard and oft-repeated one, which would either mean that I am always incapable with drink (in which case one wonders how I manage to meet all my deadlines) or that a cliché is at work. I don’t especially mind what view people take."

It's a poor defense of his behaviour. I've known "functioning alcoholics" who've worked on deadline or made public appearances. Sometimes they manage to stay sober in the "crunch period"; e.g. on-camera or during an interview. Sadly, the ones who didn't sober up soon started having "Monday morning flu" or showing up to work inebriated.

It's just a shame that no one recorded that appearance so that it could be replayed for Hitchens.

pwned

It's usually the "functioning" alcoholic that dies of the disease.

Go Father Rutler! I think he is onto something. Since I am back in the Catholic Church and partaking of the Eucharist and attending holy hours, I no longer have the desire to drink heavily like I did before when I was spiritually wanting. I'm happy now and at peace with myself. Craving more and more drink and drugs is natural once you are into it because you are trying to fill an empty void with emptiness.

Miss Jean- I was stationed with a Commander who was a functional accoholic for 15 years. It was only a *random* BAC test that showed he was something like three times the legal limit-- after having been flying and at work for at least 12 hours.

Cmdr. Floyd was intoxicated pretty much constantly for several year's time up to that point, and nearly killed himself to go on the wagon and keep his rank. This, despite not a single incident in those 15 years. He was so functional that nobody noticed. (He didn't have a sea tour, or it may have come out earlier.)

I really, really hope that Mr. Hitchens comes around.

Christopher Hitchens needs our prayers, not our criticism. He is not far from the kingdom. Don't give up on him, but rather, help him along in the Spirit.

Tens years after Hitchen's death the man on the street will still be aware of who Mother Teresa was. As of this moment if you mention the name of Christopher Hitchens you'll get, "Who?".

He's a pygmy jealous of the giants. As others have said, he needs our prayers.

Screwtape referred to the great sinners and the great saints being of the same material.

IMO Hitchens has established that he is of that material.

I concur with poster who believes Mr. Hitchens is not far from the kingdom and is need of our prayers for conversion. Some time ago I saw him on C-SPAN (with a Mr. Sullivan) issuing his standard denunciation of religion and the Church in particular. Almost in passing, though, he made a statement that reflected a profound understanding of what was at stake. I don't recall exactly the words he used, but they were to the effect that he recognized that the claim of the Church was that there was a God who so loved him -- apparently without cause and beyond all reason -- that He sent His Son to redeem him, and indeed all creation. Mr. Hitchens forcefully rejected the notion that such love could lay any claim to him, that it could "force" him to love in return. But, it seemed to me, there was such deep pride and pain in his rejection that I have prayed for his conversion ever since.

I've been praying for Christopher Hitchens on and off for quite a while. When he's good, he's very, very good! And his life story is so sad, that it's no surprise that he's occasionally horrid.

I really, really hope he'll have the humility to make that U-turn.

However, it must be said that faith does not necessarily = an end to alcoholism or other addictions. There are plenty of people of faith who have trouble with addictions. It's a lot better place to make one's stand than not believing, though.

I firmly believe Hitchens will come around to conversion eventually, even if it is immediately before his death and we do not hear about it. Keep praying for him.

God helps those who help themselves. Frankly, I think it would be much more practical and beneficial for someone to introduce Hitchens to a member of Alcholics Anonymous than to pray that God would convert him. If he's truly an alcoholic his new found faith won't help him much. Besides, why would God take the time to enlighten Christopher Hitchens
and not do the same for Richard Dawkins (who does not have a drinking problem)?

I don't know if Hitchens will convert, but I agree with those who say Hitchens understands the stakes here, and that those who understand the high stakes are always at risk of salvation.

I'm also reminded of the Biblical verse where God says -- I'd have you hot or cold, the lukewarm I will spit out of my mouth.

I've been praying for Mr Hitchens for a while, too. I'd bet he'd be surprised by how many people out there are.

The reason God would give the grace of revelation to Mr Hitchens and not Mr Dawson is simply that Mr Hitchens' soul would be ready to receive it. He is so angry against God - but when you are *that* angry, oftentimes the moment of crisis can come. Mr Dawson is, simply, lukewarm (as far as I can tell), and so not really open to grace at all - though if somebody wants to take him on as a "project", be my guest! :^)

Fr Rutler RAWKS!

Foxfier, that's similar to how a relative of mine was found out: helping an injured motorist and the cop saw the empty liquor bottle on the passenger's side. He quit drinking after a long struggle but died of massive organ failure much too young.

"God helps those who help themselves."

Mr. McKenty, that's a quote from Ben Franklin, not the Bible. God helps those who CAN'T help themselves.

"Frankly, I think it would be much more practical and beneficial for someone to introduce Hitchens to a member of Alcholics Anonymous than to pray that God would convert him."

The problem is that part and parcel of AA is a reliance on a Higher Power. Hitchens and other atheists, including my dear cousin, bridle too much over to embrace the program.

Hitchens is not headed for conversion any time soon, and the comparisons to St. Paul are way off the mark. Saul before his conversion was a zealot, but there is no indication that he was a liar, a boor, or a blowhard. Hitchens is also all of these things. He is full of ignorance and malice, as my review of his atheist manifesto shows: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_hubris

Hitchens has said of Mother Teresa, "I wish there was a hell for the bitch to go to." He made this remark on Irish radio, and thought so highly of it he repeated it in an interview with the Atlantic. Hitchens' assault on Fr. Rutler was characteristic, not an aberration.

I spent the day practicing "You will die a madman or a Swedenborgian" for use on "emerging" clergy.

I have always thought that Hitchens seemed very unhappy. I wasn't there but, this exchange seems almost like an Exorcism. Hitchens spewing vile things and literally lashing out at Fr Rutler. Fr Rutler is indeed a true Knight and true priest.

As boorish, obnoxious and gratutiously vile as Hitchens apparently was, I cannot support Fr. Rutler's comments about Hitchens dying either as a Catholic or as a madman. I'm sure a lot of Catholics have had devout fathers who, unfortunately, were alcoholics. In such cases, their Catholicity didn't help (indeed, in some cases, might have hurt, since social drinking is actively promoted at Catholic functions).

BTW, if you've had any experience in Mark Shea's blog, you'll know that Shea is the Catholic version of Hitchens: obnoxious, bullying, juvenile, gratuitously offensive, capable of vile innuendo and character assassination in a single stroke. Only his targets aren't the Mother Teresas of the world, just people who have the temerity to disagree with him.

If you want to pray for somebody, pray for Shea. Unless, of course, you've been taken in by the facade.

Besides, Fr. Rutler forgets about two other interpretations of Christianity: evangelical Protestantism (the mainline, liberal version is spiritually dead) and Eastern Orthodoxy. Tell me, fellow Catholics, should Hitchens convert to either of those branches of Christianity, will he be mad?

Christopher Hitchens has such a fine mind, and he mars it with a sad exhibition. I can't fathom that kind of hate.

One final thing: Fr. Rutler dared to judge the interior and state of a man's soul, which, outside of a confessional, is risky business, indeed. And for this he receives praise?

Fr. Rutler receives praise for standing up to a man who is relentless in his hatred for Christianity. He receives this praise in part because too many people are fawning over Hitchens, from Michael Novak at National Review Online who calls him a "Treasure" to Jamie Glazov of Front Page Magazine who calls Hitchens' atheist manifesto a "very profound and powerful read," a "valuable intellectual gift," and a "powerful moral and humanitarian statement."

Tom, he still judged the nature of the man's soul, period. It was an honest mistake under the circumstances and quite natural, given Fr. Rutler's status as Mother Teresa's confessor. Nevertheless, the best thing he could have done was to just get up and leave. For one thing, it's folly to try to reason with an abusive individual who may be drunk at the same time. For another, walking out would have embarassed Hitchens far more than trying to respond to the man.

Fr. Rutler judged his soul? Explain, please. I missed that part. Seems to me Rutler was going on public evidence given by Hitchens. Very public, and very repeated, and very obnoxious.

The Gospel's admonitions against judging must be taken together with instructions to take our brother aside and correct him if we see him sinning.

Fr. Rutler, indeed, deserves our praise and thanks.

Mr. D'Hippolito,

Hitchens needs to be challenged in every possible venue. He is a national figure, and he is using his stature to attack Christianity. I would not have chosen the exact words Fr. Rutler did, but I also am not going to criticize a man for not speaking exactly as I would have done after listening to a vicious assault on all he holds most dear. Instead, I will praise Fr. Rutler for having the guts to challenge Hitchens.

I suggest that, rather than worrying about Fr. Rutler, you write something at Front Page Magazine denouncing Hitchens. You can find plenty of ammunition in my review of his atheist manifesto: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_hubris/
You may also want to use a quote I included in the slightly longer version of this piece I wrote for Chronicles (which is not online). Speaking of Mother Teresa, Hitchens told an interviewer at the Atlantic that "I wish there was a hell for the bitch to go to."

I will be interested in reading what you write, because so far no neoconservative publication has gone after Hitchens for his hateful war against Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. Any criticism of Hitchens I have seen in such quarters can best be described as flaccid, and you generally have to wade through a lot of fawning praise of Hitchens to find even that.

Please let me know when Front Page publishes your attack on Hitchens. My e-mail address is tpiatak@yahoo.com

"Tom, he still judged the nature of the man's soul, period."

Perhaps you need to re-read The Power of Wrath in Josef Pieper's The Four Cardinal Virtues.

First, Fr. Rutler judged Hitchens sould by saying that Hitchens drank because he didn't believe in Heaven. How does he know why Hitchens drinks? Besides, a lot of devout, faithful Catholics who believe in Heaven cannot hold their alcohol (whether under duress or otherwise).

People often drink or use drugs to relieve or forget intense emotional pain and personal suffering. I don't know whether this is true in Hitchens' case but it could be. BTW, that doesn't justify his gratuitously obnoxious behavior; that's another issue.

Second, Fr. Rutler judged Hitchens' soul by saying that he will die either as a Catholic or as a madman. Sorry, but God didn't call Fr. Rutler to be a prophet. Hitchens may well die a madman. But to assume that madness or Catholicism are the only options ignores two facts:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelical Protestantism (as opposed to the liberal, mainline variety) offer just as much hope for salvation and redemption as Catholicism. Let's not forget, people, that it's Christ and His blood that saves and redeems; without those elements, the Church is worse than superfluous.

2. There's a lot of madness in Catholicism, madness that Fr. Rutler might not want to acknowledge. Among that madness: the repositioning of tabernacles away from the focus of the congregation, the headlong embrace of intellectual fashion by the vast majority of our bishops, Rome's refusal to discipline wayward or malfeasant bishops, the Church's preference for esoteric intellectuality as opposed to a clear understanding of the Gospel, and the Church's refusal to protect the innocent, as exemplified not only by the clerical sex-abuse crisis but by the bishops' silence over Terri Schiavo and the Church's ignorance about the civiliational threat that Islam poses.

And this "Catholicism: is supposed to be the opposite of madness? It just seems to be another branch from that tree, as it were.

Sorry, Joseph, but you are quite mistaken by what is meant by the sin of "judging" others. What Father Rutler did was vastly more courteous than what the vile and malevolent Hitchens deserved. What Rutler did, in fact, was use a gentle sense of humor to provoke, which is exactly what drove Hitchens to see red. Given Hitchens' furious reaction, the good priest obviously hit a nerve, and did it with his typical panache. The devil hates to be mocked, as Saint Thomas More reminds us, and so do arrogant men of Hitchens' stripe.

Every sentence is a judgment; every putting together of subject and predicate is a judgment. Is every judgment forbidden by Christian revelation? Obviously not. Is the kind of polemic and confrontation Rutler indulged in forbidden? I believe clearly not. This is a priest trying to save a soul, with the only means at his disposal for this sort of fellow: controversy, biting wit, and some strong backbone.

Mr. D'Hippolito,

Christopher Hitchens goes around slandering Christ and His Church, and you are upset with the priest who stands up to Hitchens and withstands his drunken assault? And you tell us that Catholicism is just another form of madness? That is a description far more applicable to neoconservatism than to Catholicism, in my judgment.

It is also predictable, but disappointing, that you did not respond to my suggestion that you write an essay criticizing Hitchens for Front Page Magazine. Such an essay might have done some good.

>Tom, he still judged the nature of the man's soul, period.

You would NEVER do that would ya Joe? You would NEVER say hypothetically E-mail & tell me Mark Shea or Moi was going to Hell would ya?

You would never do that?

:-)

LOL!

Oh Joe...Joe...Joe. Take your meds dude.

"One Shepherd, one Flock." Now I am sure to find many people who professed Orthodox and Evangelical and Mainline Protestant (there was a time) doctrines that are now in heaven. That said, there is only one flock, one mystical body, one Church. Whether you were a Catholic who went to daily Mass, prayed the Hours and the Rosary, or a devout Fundamentalist, or a righteous pagan in the wilderness, and are judged for heaven, you are part of the Catholic Church. Sure, there is often time in Purgatory, but that too is one aspect of the One Church. The alternative, hell, is madness. Always was, always will be.

Now, the statement is true, but we must remember that a message is received by the mode of the receiver. Fr. Rutler made a statement that was sure to sting Mr. Hitchens, and sting deep. A man as deeply seething as Christopher Hitchens is, will remember those stinging words for some time, and it is possible, though not terribly likely, that it might sting so hard to lance that festering wound in his mind.

Sure, we know the sting of the word Catholic, but there's another sting in that phrase. Let's remember that Christopher Hitchens is no stranger to Friedrich Nietzsche, and likely idolizes his work. Let us also remember that poor Friedrich went mad in his later years. Christopher gazes into the Abyss as well.

As for judging, Fr. Rutler made an observation, and called Christopher on it. Was Fr. Rutler condemning Christopher's soul? No. Fr. Rutler did connect some rather obvious dots, one of which is the madness that burns inside the mind of an anti-theist. Fr. Rutler discerned that Christopher drinks because the Abyss stares back at him. That has nothing to do with judging whether Christopher has or lacks sanctifying grace.

I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but Hitchens is scheduled to be in a debate with the well-known theologian Alister McGrath: "Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World: A debate, dialogue, and discussion with Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath".

This event will be on October 11. Hmmm. With 11 days to go perhaps a novena can be prayed beginning on Monday (Oct. 1--St. Therese) or Tuesday (Oct. 2). Novena for truth to prevail and for the conversion of Hitchens. Further, perhaps invoking the intercession of Mother Teresa would not hurt either. The day after the 11th is the liturgical day of the Good Thief. Hmmm. There is much that could coalesce here.

Well, Ben Yachov, given the way you treat people, you very well could find a place next to an unrepentant Hitchens in the infernal regions. I'll bet Ladbrookes has 5-7 odds on that possibility as we speak.

I noticed that on Mark Shea's blog, you claimed that a fellow named "austin" was me and started harassing him based on that assumption. Now, Mark (whom you trust implicitly) stated that "austin" wasn't me, but you have yet to apologize for your boorish behavior toward him. If you half the "orthodox Catholic" that you claim to be, you would apologize without needing a reminder. Instead, you just pile on because that's how you have your fun.

Peter, regarding Fr. Rutler's using a "gentle sense of humor to provoke": How is saying that a man will die "either as a Catholic or a madman" or that his alcoholism is directly related to his atheism gentle or humorous? I can understand Fr. Rutler's anger at Hitchens' behavior and his slander of Mother Teresa. Still, walking away without saying anything would have been far more eloquent.

For the rest of you, re-read the following, particularly the section bold:

There's a lot of madness in Catholicism, madness that Fr. Rutler might not want to acknowledge. Among that madness: the repositioning of tabernacles away from the focus of the congregation, the headlong embrace of intellectual fashion by the vast majority of our bishops, Rome's refusal to discipline wayward or malfeasant bishops, the Church's preference for esoteric intellectuality as opposed to a clear understanding of the Gospel, and the Church's refusal to protect the innocent, as exemplified not only by the clerical sex-abuse crisis but by the bishops' silence over Terri Schiavo and the Church's ignorance about the civiliational threat that Islam poses.

That is the reality of the Church today. Hitchens doesn't need to try to destory it. It's doing a very good job of destroying itself -- and you're all too infatuated with your own Pride in Being Catholic to notice.

>you very well could find a place next to an unrepentant Hitchens in the infernal regions.

Ah so it OK for YOU to say Hitchens (or myself) might wind up in the "infernal regions" if we are unrepented yet if Fr. Rutler similarly says Hitchens will either die a madman or a Catholic then that is "judging the nature of the man's soul" which of course horror of horrors is just so wrong.

Of course!"Do as I say & not as I do".

I mean that's no inconsitant at all now is it? Perfectly reasonable. Of course if you believe that I have this Bridge over in the net burrow from me I would like to sell. Any takers?

I can't make this stuff up people. Joe is being SERIOUS. Scarry eh?

>I noticed that on Mark Shea's blog, you claimed that a fellow named "austin" was me and started harassing him based on that assumption. Now, Mark (whom you trust implicitly) stated that "austin" wasn't me, but you have yet to apologize for your boorish behavior toward him. If you half the "orthodox Catholic" that you claim to be, you would apologize without needing a reminder. Instead, you just pile on because that's how you have your fun.

I reply: So you want me to apologize for thinking Austin(a man you agree with 100% & think is smarter than me & Shea & said so) was you? If I do that then what I am in fact saying is that it is a grave insult to others if I say they are you?

Finally something we can agree on!:-) Austin I am so sorry I said you where D'Hippolito. That was a horrible insult for which I have no excuse. Sorry about that buddy.

Joe why do you make it so easy?

I can't resist giving Joe a theology lession. The man is notoriously theologically unlearned.

>1. Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelical Protestantism (as opposed to the liberal, mainline variety) offer just as much hope for salvation and redemption as Catholicism.

They offer no hope for salvation. Any Eastern Orthodox & or Protestants who are saved are saved because they belong to the Soul of the CATHOLIC CHURCH & in spite of their membership in heretical & schismatic bodies. The Catholic Church ALONE is the True Church & contains the Fullness of Truth. Of course Joe can't tell the difference between this and Feeneyism (& has said so)but what can you do?

>Let's not forget, people, that it's Christ and His blood that saves and redeems; without those elements, the Church is worse than superfluous.

Except it is an oxymoron to speak of a Catholic Church without Christ and His blood an orthodox Catholic believes the infallible dogma of Church Indefectabiltiy. Thus a Roman Catholic Church without Christ cannot objectively exist. Neither the Eastern Orthodox or the Protestants are indeffectable. So logically & doctrinally a faithful Catholic CAN ONLY invite a person into the True Church.

>2. There's a lot of madness in Catholicism, madness that Fr. Rutler might not want to acknowledge.

So what? The heretics & schismatics have at best the same level of "madness" too. Except they have madness without the Fullness of Truth.

>Among that madness: the repositioning of tabernacles away from the focus of the congregation,

Yet Protestantism has no Tabernacles or even a valid Eucharist so is it not by definition more "Mad" than Catholicism? The Eastern Orthodox don't have Tabernacles where they retain & publically worship the Eucharist at all. They keep their Eucharists for the sick but have no public worship of the Eucharist outside of the Divine Liturgy. I fail to see how that is better?

>the headlong embrace of intellectual fashion by the vast majority of our bishops,

Typical D'Hippolito meaningless ambigious statement.

>Rome's refusal to discipline wayward or malfeasant bishops,

As opposed to the Protestants who don't have a central authority just a large mass of independant "Churches" who are acountable to nobody? Plus the Eastern Orthodox are no better. Don't believe me? Read the Greek Media sometime. Their Patriarchs aren't runing over each other to kick out subordinate bishops who have gone bad any faster than the Catholics. Except they are schismatics & The Catholic Church is the True Church.

>the Church's preference for esoteric intellectuality as opposed to a clear understanding of the Gospel,

The idea the gospel is "clear" or "simple" is a Protestant novelty.

>and the Church's refusal to protect the innocent, as exemplified not only by the clerical sex-abuse crisis but by the bishops' silence over Terri Schiavo

Many bishops spoke out against the murder or Terri Schiavo indeed that was JP2's parting shot against the Dark Powers before his death.

>and the Church's ignorance about the civiliational threat that Islam poses.

It's not the Church's job to judge the possible "threat" Islam allegiedly poses. That is a political judgement & it is the sole responsibility of the goverment. All the Church can do is judge Islam heterodox(which She has) & dialog with those Muslims of good will(which excludes Jihadist by nature). Also if you are so concerned about the lives of the innocent Joe then explain youself. When Pope Benedict quoted the negative comments of a Christian Emperoro about Islam how many innocent people died? Yet YOU want some broad statement from the Pope saying all Muslims are the enemies of Christians & a threat to civilization? Yeh that will go over well. Of course if YOUR PRIVATE POLOCIES threaten the lives of the innocent well that's Ok. Just like it Ok for you to say I'm in danger of going to Hell BUT it NOT Ok when Fr Rutler does it to Hitchens?

This makes sense to you? All that I can say is WOW!

>And this "Catholicism: is supposed to be the opposite of madness? It just seems to be another branch from that tree, as it were.

Rather it's your inability to seperate theology and politics that leads your to "mad" double standards & outragious inconsistancies.

Ben, if you're serious about your apology, then why don't you apologize on Shea's blog? After all, that's where you offended "austin," not here.

As far as "double standards" are concerned, you're right. Instead of engaging in the flame war that you want, I will do what Fr. Rutler should have done and simply walk away from a madman.

(Gentle readers, watch Ben try to get in the last word a la Hitchens and get his knickers in a twist because he won't have me to debate him any more.)

What I have seen from Mr. D'Hippolito here is consistent with what he has written for Front Page Magazine. He is far more interested in criticizing the Vicar of Christ--and bishops, priests, and faithful Catholics--than he is in criticizing enemies of Christ like Mr. Hitchens.

In fact, neoconservative publications like Front Page give Hitchens a pass on his war against Christianity, because he is in favor of the only war they care about, the war in Iraq. Hitchens is free to slander John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Mother Teresa, St. Maksymilian Kolbe, and the like, and he will never get any serious criticism in those quarters as long as he is for the war in Iraq. Indeed, Front Page has given Hitchens several sycophantic interviews, and Front Page's editor, David Horowitz, regularly gushes about how wonderful Hitchens is. This really should tell us all we need to know about the priorities of the neocons.

>Ben, if you're serious about your apology, then why don't you apologize on Shea's blog?

I'm clearly NOT serious about it. Duh!

>After all, that's where you offended "austin," not here.

Why can't "austin" speak for himself I wonder?

>As far as "double standards" are concerned, you're right. Instead of engaging in the flame war that you want, I will do what Fr. Rutler should have done and simply walk away from a madman.

Wow this the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you do. At least you are learning.

>(Gentle readers, watch Ben try to get in the last word a la Hitchens and get his knickers in a twist because he won't have me to debate him any more.)

Rather, I'm shocked I say shocked you for once did the intelligent thing, instead of what I expected you to do(i.e. offer a self-defeating deathless defense of why it was Ok for you to "warn" me I'm going to Hell but if Fr. Rutler warns Hitchens of madness etc.... that was just so wrong on his part).

You suprise me. I would never have expected this.

I'm almost tempted to say "Good Show". Almost.:-)

>This really should tell us all we need to know about the priorities of the neocons.

Being one of those "neocons" (whatever that is) I must take acception to your generalization. I'm for the war in Iraq & I will be the first to smack down any twit who disrepects John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Mother Teresa, St. Maksymilian Kolbe etc.

Why? Well for a number of reasons(justice, loyalty, it's the right thing to do), and of course it is common sense dictates whatever political belief you advocate is not well served by hitching it with a shmoe.

God-hating twonks like Hitchens are no more useful to my pro-war view then egotistical weirdos like let us say Cindy Shehan are to your anti-War views.

That is just common sense. Cheers!:-)

Mr. Piatak, when "faithful Catholics" patronize, enable and otherwise appease a "religion" that seeks to enslave them, destroy them and replace the crucified and resurrected Jesus with a false prophet, then they are enemies of Christ.

When such "Catholics" give open support to such men as Saddam Hussein, as Cdl. Renato Martino did, or repeat the propaganda of the infidel, as Cdl. Poul Poupard did on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, then they are enemies of Christ.

When such "Catholics" refuse to acknowledge the civilization threat that Islam poses, then they are enemies of Christ.

When a Vicar of Christ spends more time criticizing a war over which he has no control -- a war that deposed a sadistic tyrant, btw -- than confronting a sex-abuse crisis that was the greatest threat to the Church's moral credibility since the Reformation, then he becomes an enemy of Christ.

When such a vicar refuses to discipline malfeasant bishops who cast their faith aside for political power and prestige, then he becomes an enemy of Christ.

When such a vicar fails to denounce effectively the Palestinian and Muslim "culture of death" that encourages (indeed, praises and rewards) the piecemeal genocide known as suicide bombing, then he is an enemy of Christ.

When such a vicar seeks to make common cause with a false religion in such issues as abortion and general moral decay yet abandons his calling to proclaim the Gospel to that religion's members, then he becomes an enemy of Christ

And, Mr. Piatak, when a Vicar of Christ kisses a Koran (and, thus, reviles the memories of Christian martyrs to Islam), then he becomes an enemy of Christ.

Mr. D'Hippolito,

The notion that John Paul II was an "enemy of Christ" is obscene. The man's goodness and holiness were transparent, which is why 4,000,000 came to Rome for his funeral and why pilgrims continue to stream to his tomb, often leaving in tears. I saw the latter on my own visit to St. Peter's in May.

I suggest, though, that you share with Christopher Hitchens your quip that he should really be called "Poop John Baal." Since Hitchens marked John Paul's death by writing two vituperative columns about him, he would no doubt think your comment funny.

As for Iraq, the war has devastated the ancient Christian community there, causing half of Iraqi Christians to flee. This was a predictable outcome of the war, and was no doubt one of the reasons John Paul II and Benedict XVI opposed it.

>Mr. Piatak, when "faithful Catholics" patronize, enable and otherwise appease a "religion" that seeks to enslave them, destroy them and replace the crucified and resurrected Jesus with a false prophet, then they are enemies of Christ.

Accept the Catholic Church & Pope John Paul II in particular have NEVER done this accept in Joe's fevered conspiracy theory. One of Joe many presupositional errors here is to assume anything having to do with Muslims or Islam must be treated as an undividable whole. He is like the Jew-Baiting conspiracy theorist who thinks Abe Foxmen & Rabbi Levine are in cohoots because they both happen to be Jews. Thus Joe can't tell the difference between the Muslim theologian & academic who shows up for an Eccumenical Dialog (with his rather civilized view of Islam) Vs. the Suicide Bombing Jihadist.

>When such "Catholics" give open support to such men as Saddam Hussein, as Cdl. Renato Martino did, or repeat the propaganda of the infidel, as Cdl. Poul Poupard did on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, then they are enemies of Christ.

Classic Joe. Didn't Shawn warn you about this or did you post this dreck before he spoke to you? This is a tangent that serves as a distraction, another example of trying to find everything possible to criticize or undermine the memory of the late pontiff.
It is the ONLY way Joe knows how to argue. Then he acts surpised when he is not recieved well by faithful Catholics.

>When such "Catholics" refuse to acknowledge the civilization threat that Islam poses, then they are enemies of Christ.

Again the erroneous warrent here is Islam is treated as an undifferenciated whole. The liberal Muslim acidemic who cites the passage from the Koran that states "There shall be no compultion in Religions" is treated by Joe as the eqivilant of the terrorist who cites passages about killing the infidel. The REAL threat to civilization is ANY group of individuals who seek to coherce people into accepting their beliefs & commit extreme acts of violence to bring it about. As per usual it is the sole providence of the Goverment, the temperal gardians of civilization, to recognise the threat & deal with it. It's not the Church. She is not a political entity. She is above such prostitution as politics or ideally should be.

>When a Vicar of Christ spends more time criticizing a war over which he has no control -- a war that deposed a sadistic tyrant, btw -- than confronting a sex-abuse crisis that was the greatest threat to the Church's moral credibility since the Reformation, then he becomes an enemy of Christ.

I won't address the tangent of Sex abuse(you would do well Joe to ACTUALLY follow Shawn's advice instead of snowing him by saying you will follow his advice & then writing this dreck). Joe's mojo is to gravitate toward extremist mischaracterizations. The Pope's criticism over the war is quite restrained & sober even if you don't agree with it. Joe can't tell the difference between the Pope & Cindy Shehan & wishes to make an emotional argument. BTW for the record I agreed at the time we needed to remove Saddam & disagreed with the Pope's ctiticism. But it's a strech to claim the Pope opposition to the War as patronizing, enabling and otherwise appeasing a religion that seeks to enslave them. This is just Pro-war version of Cindy Shehanistic retoric. As a Pro-war Catholic on principle I disavow it.

>When such a vicar refuses to discipline malfeasant bishops who cast their faith aside for political power and prestige, then he becomes an enemy of Christ.

Joe is a very ambigous & disorder critic. I believe here he wants the Pope to monitor the Political oppinions of the Cardinals & rebuke those who don't conform to Joe's personal political orthodoxy or they are "enemies of Christ". Yeh sure pal. I can't make this stuff up. Joe you are the Cindy Shehan of the Pro-war Right. Your views are extemist & a poor substitute for authentic, balanced & sober criticism. You are a liability to the Pro-War argument. Not an asset.

>When such a vicar fails to denounce effectively the Palestinian and Muslim "culture of death" that encourages (indeed, praises and rewards) the piecemeal genocide known as suicide bombing, then he is an enemy of Christ.

Here Joe tries to save himself with his use of the adjective "effectively". He knows it is silly to claim the Pope has never condemned suicide bombing. I speculate "effective" is defined by him as either meaning denouncing Islam with the same impudent extremist retoric Joe employs on a daily basis or the belief that because the violence had not stopped it was therefore "ineffective". I luv the styling of JP2 as an enemy of Christ. That is just so balanced. People will start to take you seriously Joe. Not!!!

>When such a vicar seeks to make common cause with a false religion in such issues as abortion and general moral decay yet abandons his calling to proclaim the Gospel to that religion's members, then he becomes an enemy of Christ

Like I said Joe sees no difference between the Muslim accademic with an idealized reasonable interpretation of Islamic doctrine who actually shows up at the Vatican to dialog with the Pope Vs. the lunatic Jihadist who bombs inocents. For him it's all one religion. Objectively Islam is a heresy but it's secondary doctrines subjectly mean different things to different Muslims. Obviously I would want to & would make cause with ordinary Muslims against abortion but the Jihadist would simply blow up the clinic/mill. Of course he will have to wait in line behind the ARMY OF GOD & other extremist "Christian" groups that have been doing that for years. :-) (I can use Tangents too for emotional effect).

>And, Mr. Piatak, when a Vicar of Christ kisses a Koran (and, thus, reviles the memories of Christian martyrs to Islam), then he becomes an enemy of Christ.

Ah but siding with an Atheist bigot who attacks the Church against one of Her faithful Priests DOES not make YOU an enemy of Christ BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS? Of course thankfully I find your standards bogus to begin with so be gratful.

Tom Piatak, for the record this guy DOES NOT speak for me as a "Pro-war" Catholic anymore than Cindy Shehan speaks for you. Just so we are clear guy.

>I will do what Fr. Rutler should have done and simply walk away from a madman.

I guess that was short lived.

Ben, my comments were directed toward Mr. Piatak, not to you. When you can argue using evidence and facts instead of personal attacks (as does your friend and One True God, Mark Shea), then we can talk.

Anyway, I have evidence for my assertions.

The following was said by Cdl. Paul Poupard, who was President for the Pontifical Council for Culture, one day before the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:

Many of the so-called values of present Western civilization are anything but values . (T)he destruction of the family, the exaltation of homosexuality, the spread of pornography, growing immorality, abortion, gratuitous violence, the exclusion of God in the edification of society . stir contempt and hatred for decadent Western society in other civilizations (Zenit, Vatican news service, Sept. 10, 2002).

While such things might be true in general, it's also the "rationale" the jihadists use for their opposition to the West. For a leading cardinal to make such a remark at such a time demonstrates not only incredible density on his part but gives the enemies of civilization aid and comfort.

As far as interreligious dialogue goes, it is exceedingly overrated. Even "moderate Muslims" are enjoined by the Koran to convert non-Muslims. I didn't make this up. If either of you have any intellectual courage, I suggest you visit a site called "Jihad Watch" (http://www.jihadwatch.org), which explains the myth of the "moderate Muslim." It's run by Robert Spencer, a devout Eastern Rite Christian who probably doesn't have the same opinion of Mother Teresa that Christopher Hitchens does.

Moreover, I have yet to see any evidence that JPII encouraged the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.

Furthermore, I would like either of you to ask Egyptian Copts or other Middle Eastern Christians whether their lives were made better or worse by JPII's Koran kissing.

Yes, "enemy of Christ" is a strong epithet to use. But some of you people are so blinded by your own infatuation with your Catholicity that you have come to believe that no Pope or Church official should be criticized for any prudential acts or decisions.

That is not faith. That is idolatry. And if you get pissed off at that, well, I don't give a flying (expletive deleted).

Mr. D'Hippolito,

I am not particularly a fan of ecumenical dialogue. But it is one thing to say that John Paul II made mistakes in his geopolitical judgments; it is quite another to say that those mistakes made him an "enemy of Christ." He was in fact a devoted follower of Christ, his whole life, and will most likely be raised to the altars during our lives.

In any event, it's not clear to me that all the judgments you assail were wrong, or what you propose instead. It certainly made sense to make common cause with Moslem states against the UN proposal to make abortion a protected "human right" at the Cairo conference.

The Holy See also has few cards to play in the Mideast, and innocent Christians who live in the Mideast are likely to pay the price for inflammatory statements from Rome. Hence, a desire to avoid such statements.

Even invading the Mideast will not necessarily improve the situation for Christians living there. Certainly, the situation for Iraqi Christians has gotten much worse since our invastion: we destroyed a regime that had been relatively tolerant of them, and the violent anarchy that filled the vacuum after Hussein fell has been especially cruel to Christians, with up to half of Iraqi Christians fleeing since the invasion. If having an American army in Iraq is not enough to protect Iraqi Christians, it is hard to see what military measure in the realm of reasonable possibility might be taken to protect Middle Eastern Christians.

Finally, the track record for converting Moslems to Christianity is generally a poor one. Christian missionaries had access to much of the Moslem world during the heyday of European colonialism, and nowhere did they succeed in converting large numbers of Moslems. Neither Francis of Assisi nor Francis Xavier had much success in this area, either. John Paul's interest in trying a different approach scarcely makes him an "enemy of Christ," any more than Benedict XVI's somewhat different approach to the Moslem world makes him an "enemy of Christ."

Better Eurabia than Brave New World. All the same, though, a revival of Christendom would be better than either.

>Ben, my comments were directed toward Mr. Piatak, not to you. When you can argue using evidence and facts instead of personal attacks (as does your friend and One True God, Mark Shea), then we can talk.

But should you know by now when you publically slander the Pope with your wacko theories I'm gonna call you out on it. So clearly your "walking away" nonsense was just that, nonsense. Of course we BOTH know you define "evidence and facts" as inuendo, special pleading and extremist retoric but let's see what you have.

>The following was said by Cdl. Paul Poupard, who was President for the Pontifical Council for Culture, one day before the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:

Many of the so-called values of present Western civilization are anything but values . (T)he destruction of the family, the exaltation of homosexuality, the spread of pornography, growing immorality, abortion, gratuitous violence, the exclusion of God in the edification of society . stir contempt and hatred for decadent Western society in other civilizations (Zenit, Vatican news service, Sept. 10, 2002).

>While such things might be true in general, it's also the "rationale" the jihadists use for their opposition to the West.

Well you have just conceded the lion's share of the argument to me by admiting the Cardinal's statement is "true in general". So I don't know what you have left. That the Jihadists use it as a rational for terrorism DOESN'T logically follow the Cardinal has supported said terrorism or his statement gives support to such terrorisms. ARGUMENT BY SPECIAL PLEADING. Look it up.

>For a leading cardinal to make such a remark at such a time demonstrates not only incredible density on his part but gives the enemies of civilization aid and comfort.

Stating the Truth (a Truth you just conceded)gives aid & confort? Well then YOU SIR have given aid & confort to the Enemies of God True Church anytime you truthfully spoke out against the sex abuse in the Church(by your own erroneous standards that is which I reject). Since enemies of the Church use that as an excuse to get Catholics to leave the Church or stop people from joining it which is an objective threat to their eternal salvation. (Being Damned is FAR WORSE then merely being blown up). Like I said you can seperate Politics from Religion. Not that you know much about your own religion to comment with any authority.
You can't have it both ways.

>As far as interreligious dialogue goes, it is exceedingly overrated. Even "moderate Muslims" are enjoined by the Koran to convert non-Muslims.

I think here you really mean "convert by force". The Koran wants non-Muslims to convert & the NT wants non-Christians to convert. WELL DUH!!!! Joe I'm the one with the bad grammer stop cuting into my racket.

>I didn't make this up. If either of you have any intellectual courage, I suggest you visit a site called "Jihad Watch" (http://www.jihadwatch.org), which explains the myth of the "moderate Muslim." It's run by Robert Spencer, a devout Eastern Rite Christian who probably doesn't have the same opinion of Mother Teresa that Christopher Hitchens does.

As as Catholics we reject the Protestant heresy that even the Bible (which unlike the Koran is REALLY God's Inspired Word) is perspicuous(i.e.clear) & can be interpreted privately.
Well why should I believe the Koran is perspicuous? It contradicts itself and as my Coptic Catholic friend pointed out to me you can prove anything with it. The Bible tells us God wrote the Natural Law in Our hearts. If an individual Muslim follows that Law by God's Grace he will interpret the Koran in a reasonable way(& he will lay the foundation for his possible convertion to the True Faith). If he resists that Grace by following his sinful flesh he will become a Jihadist. A good moderate Muslim will simply treat passages in the Koran that command the killing of the infidels & forced conversions as temporary & incidental to that time period the same way WE TREAT passages in the Old Testament where God commands the Israelites to wipe out wicked nations even killing the women & the Children as not applying today(Note however it was the "Christian" Republican* Dictator Cromwell who used these VERY same passages in the OT to justify his genocide against the Irish). So your argument has no merit.

>Moreover, I have yet to see any evidence that JPII encouraged the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.

More argumentive falacy. I don't see any evidence JPII envcouraged the conversion of anabaptists or the Amish. Another irrelavent tangent. REDEMTORIS MISSIO! Read it sometime. All non-believers have a right to hear the Gospel. JP2 said it & called on Catholics to preach the Gospel to the non-Christians. End of story. Muslims are by definition non-christians. Do the math.

>Furthermore, I would like either of you to ask Egyptian Copts or other Middle Eastern Christians whether their lives were made better or worse by JPII's Koran kissing.

My Coptic friends have found the disrepect shown the Pope by extremists who claim to be "Catholic" more troubling. I have YET to hear a single Jihadist claim "The Pope Kissed the Koran therefore I have a right to kill you for not converting to Islam." Jihadist don't care. My Coptic friend told me if he gave a Bible to a Muslim friend that Muslim would most likely out of respect kiss it. Jimmy Akin asked some Chaldean Catholic friends about it & they complained the Pope put his foot on the neck of Christians. It's subjective. Anyway this complaint has been done to death & the only intelligent critical analysis I've read has come from Akin.
As I recall you chimed in to promote you wacko political theory about how the Late JP2 eccumenical policies toward Muslims was causing the deaths or will cause the deaths of Christians at the hand of Jihadists. It is impossible to take that view seriously.

>Yes, "enemy of Christ" is a strong epithet to use.

Try extemist retoric & sinful slander. Shawn warned you on Jimmy Akin's blog about this & how self defeating it was & about 40 minutes or more after you thanked him for his kindness & correction you went out & did it again(I make this calculation based on the times of the posts). Your learning curve is way off. Yet I know you WON'T learn from exprerience & history will repeat itself.

>But some of you people are so blinded by your own infatuation with your Catholicity that you have come to believe that no Pope or Church official should be criticized for any prudential acts or decisions.

I am NOT infatuated with my Catholicity I LOVE MY Catholicity. Just like I love Rosemarie or my kids or being of Scotish origin. Loving what is Catholic is the essence of being Catholic. How can I hate what I am? How can I hate what gives meaning to life & was given to me as an undiserved gift by God? You have some really objectively disordered views of a religion you claim to belong too. Either you really don't know what Catholicity is or you do, reject it & prove my charge you are a heretic.

>That is not faith. That is idolatry.

No idolatry is the giving of Divine Worship to that which is not the True God. You love your political ideology more the God's Church IMHO.

>And if you get pissed off at that, well, I don't give a flying (expletive deleted).

I don't give a flying (expletive deleted) about your wacko political theories & self-defeating rationalizations for you bad behavior while blaming Mark Shea for a bad reputation you clearly brought on yourself. You think I react negatively \ to you because of what Mark Shea says about you? Hey read what you have written & formed the only obvious opinion. I don't even talk to Shea outside a comments box & even then we never interact.

Note: *Of course by Republican I'm using the old British definition & NOT the modern American One.

That the Jihadists use it as a rational for terrorism DOESN'T logically follow the Cardinal has supported said terrorism or his statement gives support to such terrorism.

But you know something, Ben? Timing is everything. Had Poupard said it any other time, I wouldn't have brought it up. The fact that he said it on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks shows either his naivete about the nature of Islamic terrorism or his outright hostility toward the West as a whole, especially since he uses the rationalizations that the jihadists use.

Don't forget that one archbishop, Hilarion Capucci, used his diplomatic Mercedes to hide weapons to give to Palestinian terrorists.

The fact is, Ben, that there exists in the Vatican a pro-Arab, pro-Islam, anti-Israel, anti-American faction. People like Poupard hide their views behind pious rhetoric. If you had read my articles with any sense of objectivity, you would have understood that.

YOU SIR have given aid & confort to the Enemies of God True Church anytime you truthfully spoke out against the sex abuse in the Church(by your own erroneous standards that is which I reject).

Ben, the abusive priests and their enabling bishops gave more aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church than I ever could. Why don't you save some of your anger toward them?

]more to come

I didn't make this up. If either of you have any intellectual courage, I suggest you visit a site called "Jihad Watch" (http://www.jihadwatch.org), which explains the myth of the "moderate Muslim." It's run by Robert Spencer, a devout Eastern Rite Christian who probably doesn't have the same opinion of Mother Teresa that Christopher Hitchens does.

As as Catholics we reject the Protestant heresy that even the Bible (which unlike the Koran is REALLY God's Inspired Word) is perspicuous(i.e.clear)...

Ben, just what the Hell are you talking about? Spencer is an Eastern Rite Christian, not a Protestant.

I am NOT infatuated with my Catholicity I LOVE MY Catholicity.

Well, Ben, if you're such a good Catholic, then why do you mock the idea of apologizing to somebody whom you misidentified, "austin," and then proceeded to insult based on that misidentification?

Ben, you're right. You're not infatuated with your Catholicity. YOU WORSHIP YOUR CATHOLICITY BECAUSE YOUR 'CATHOLICITY' IS AN EXTENTION OF YOUR IMMATURE, RAGING EGO. Your answers to my challenges illustrate that clearly.

Now why would I use "enemy of Christ" to describe JPII? Simple. JPII prayed to a false God when he visited and prayed in the mosque at Damascus during his last trip to the Middle East. He committed an act of idolatry. Yes, I know that he has written about the difference between "Allah" and Yahweh, and about Islam and Christianity. Then why pray in a mosque? Why didn't he respectfully decline? Do you think Muslims pray in Christian churches? There are times to put your actions where your words are.

Mr. D'Hippolito,

I notice that despite saying you were directing your comments to me and not Ben, you ignored what I wrote and went after Ben instead. I wonder why?

In any event, Cardinal Poupard offered an accurate statement. Unfortunately, the West is awash in immorality, which is why only a return to the religion that built the West will save the West. And there is no question but that the immorality of the West helps ben Laden and his ilk gain recruits.

Why should I care if Cardinal Poupard is "anti-Israel?" There is absolutely no requirement for Catholics to be "pro-Israel," any more than there is a requirement for Catholics to be "pro-Bolivia." Catholics are required to love their own countries and to treat other countries in accord with natural law, and nothing Cardinal Poupard said contravenes that. You may wish that Catholics were required to be pro-Israel, but we're not. Indeed, the Holy See has always recognized the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland.

John Paul II also prayed at the Wailing Wall and a synagogue. In fact, he prayed everywhere he went. Offering a prayer in a non-Christian place of worship is not the same as offering a non-Christian prayer.

Your views of John Paul II are actually very similar to Hitchens' views of him. I'd be happy to debate both of you about John Paul. I'd suggest Krakow as the venue, and Lech Walesa as the moderator. If there's a bigger "enemy of Christ" out there than John Paul, it's surely Walesa and all those foolish Poles who took to heart what "Poop John Baal" told them.

>But you know something, Ben? Timing is everything. Had Poupard said it any other time, I wouldn't have brought it up. The fact that he said it on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks shows either his naivete about the nature of Islamic terrorism or his outright hostility toward the West as a whole, especially since he uses the rationalizations that the jihadists use.

This is merely what you have already said, without addressing what I have said, a clear sign you have lost this argument. You have not proven Jihadist where helped just because the Cardinal spoke against immorality in the west you merely assume it without proof. Again this is SPECIAL PLEADING.
Merely repeating you error doesn't make it true.

>Don't forget that one archbishop, Hilarion Capucci, used his diplomatic Mercedes to hide weapons to give to Palestinian terrorists.

Tangent alert!!! Yes way back in 1974 before John Paul II. The Israelis released him BTW. In the 16th century a Catholic Cardinal collected & burned copies of the Talmud. This is all relavent how? Short answer it is not. You are losing this argument so you desperate & looking for any stick to beat the Church with. Who need anti-Catholic fundies when Joe D is around? Shawn warned you about extremist arguments & tangents. Like I said small learning curve.

>The fact is, Ben, that there exists in the Vatican a pro-Arab, pro-Islam, anti-Israel, anti-American faction. People like Poupard hide their views behind pious rhetoric. If you had read my articles with any sense of objectivity, you would have understood that.

Again with the tangents. This has to do with you wacko claims JP2 eccumencial Policy causes Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims how?

This is also comical since lunatic "Catholic" anti-Semites accused the last Pope & Paul VI of being secret Jews and or Jewish sympathizers. Which of you self-hating "Catholic" anti-Catholic conpiracy mongerers should I believe? Interesting how anti-Catholic bigots have this mutual tendancy to bash the Vatican & claim the Vatican denzens are secret sympathizers to the ideology they believe is the source of ultimate evil in the world(Islam, Zionism etc).

>Ben, the abusive priests and their enabling bishops gave more aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church than I ever could. Why don't you save some of your anger toward them?

I am angry at specific guilty Priests you OTOH seem to be angry at all of them (your abuse of Fr. Rutler is proof of that). This is your way of admiting you don't have a reasonable answer to explain your double standards & hypocracy. You grant yourself the UNLIMITIED RIGHT to speak out against the immoralities in the Church & denounce bishops for not doing so but if a Cardinal does speak out against immoralities then that is wrong? The double standard is irrational and of course classic Joe'D.

>>As as Catholics we reject the Protestant heresy that even the Bible (which unlike the Koran is REALLY God's Inspired Word) is perspicuous(i.e.clear)...

>Ben, just what the Hell are you talking about? Spencer is an Eastern Rite Christian, not a Protestant.

That doesn't mean this gentilmen's implied presuposition that the Koran is perspicuous is true. Funny how when it's convenient for your wacko ideology all of a sudden because someone is Catholic they can do no wrong. Amusing.
My original argument still stands. Clearly you have neither the theological or intellectual ability to answer it. The Koran is man made Joe. It's meaning is MORE subjective than the Bible which is of The Divine.

>Well, Ben, if you're such a good Catholic, then why do you mock the idea of apologizing to somebody whom you misidentified, "austin," and then proceeded to insult based on that misidentification?

I thought Austin was you. Given he uses your retoric, holds to your ideas, despises Mark Shea, you told me personally that you agree him, & you think he is far more intelligent than Shea & me put together then I fail to see what the insult was? If he is a real person (and not a pseudonym) he can tell me himself if he was offended & I will consider an apology.

Let us be honest Joe. If YOU cared at all about apologies you would have apologized for smearing John Paul II by claiming he might have commited suicide. You didn't. Apologies are for you a form of oneupsmanship. Nothing more. I won't play your game.

>Ben, you're right. You're not infatuated with your Catholicity. YOU WORSHIP YOUR CATHOLICITY BECAUSE YOUR 'CATHOLICITY' IS AN EXTENTION OF YOUR IMMATURE, RAGING EGO. Your answers to my challenges illustrate that clearly.

I worship the Trinity & I honor & love Catholicism. Not being able to tell the difference between worship & honor is a sure sign of Protestant heresy. Joe your venom illustrates you are a Self-hating Catholic. You hate all that is Catholic. For the past couple of days I've seen you do nothing but lash out against anything & everything that has to do with being a loyal Catholic. You accused bishops of not speaking out for Terri Shalvo(then that was proven bogus) but you condemned Fr. Rutler when he spoke out against Hitchens. You want the Pope to indiscriminatly pronounce Islam a threat to civilization(regardless of the consecuences or cost to human lives) & yet you condemn Fr. Rutler for being uncharitable toward Hitchens.
Make up your mind.

>Now why would I use "enemy of Christ" to describe JPII? Simple. JPII prayed to a false God when he visited and prayed in the mosque at Damascus during his last trip to the Middle East. He committed an act of idolatry.

You used it because you are in love with self-defeating extemist retoric, you spurn reason & you have a small learning curve having forgotten in less than 47 minutes the lessons Shawn taught you.

Also every Melkite, Coptic and Maronite Church I've ever been too called God Allah in the Arabic prayers found in the Liturgy so they are idolators too? That would go for the guy who runs Jihadwatch if he is a middle eastern Catholic. Pope St Gregory VII SAID Muslims worship the same God we do(they just have an incorrect understanding of his inner nature). I believe in Allah. I believe in Allah Al Ab & Allah Al Kalam & the Rual Al Qudds & that they are all Alhad. "Allah" os Arabic for "The God" just as "God" is Anglo-Germanic for Elohim. Clearly you are one of these plebes who thinks God only speaks or understands English.

>Yes, I know that he has written about the difference between "Allah" and Yahweh, and about Islam and Christianity. Then why pray in a mosque?

Why would God stop listening to a Christian just because he stepped into a mosque? So there is like a null-God forcefield where the Trinue God ceases to exist covering every Mosque in the world that blocks transmission Christians prayers to Him? You admit JP2 wrote about the difference between the Christian & Islamic understanding of God yet somehow when JP2 went into the Mosque he thought God transformed into a unitarian deity?
Joe I'm only gonna tell ya this once. Lay off the drugs.

>Why didn't he respectfully decline?

Because he always reached out in good will to Muslims or any other people of good will & those of good will responded. That's his job. It's the Job of the CIA & the Army etc to hunt down & kill Jihadists. Not the Pope. It is the Job of the Pope to love Muslims with Christian Charity. He didn't share your insane hatred of Muslims which clearly has spilled out against your fellow Catholics, against priests & manafests itself as self-hatred of your own Catholicity. He didn't hold your "all Muslims are evil mojo". Thank the Trinue Allah for that!

>Do you think Muslims pray in Christian churches?

I know they do. In Egypt whenever there is an Apparition of the Virgin Mary Muslims show up to the Church in droves & venerate Her. Muslims in Eqypt seek out Coptic Priests to bless their houses. If an Eqyptian Muslim is possessed by an evil spirit he doesn't go to an Imam he goes to a Christian Priest for exocism. Muslim visit Christian Shrines. This has been going on for centuries. Shows what you know.

>There are times to put your actions where your words are.

Unless your name is Poupard then we don't care about words do we Joe?

Joe you love your pseudo right-wing political ideology more than your Catholicity. That is real idolatry(by your defective erroneous definition of idolatry that is) & it has not served you at all.

You should have just kept walking.