Here's the tirade:
Christopher Hitchens Schools The Catholic Church(Epic Closing Statement)
Siddharth Sridharan | 2.XI.2013
- 1:13 [Where Hitch evokes Catholic Bolivia] Well, more people die, because more people live.
All people who live, die.
3:23 I totally agree with Hitchens that Catholicism bans sodomy, like contraception and a few more.
Recall what Hitchens said about poor countries? "More people die".
Yes, but before that, more people live too.
- 1:38 Germany, Austria and elsewhere ...
Poles were indirectly participating, some of them, by delivering Jews up, by "I don't really care". Also, a synagogue burnt down with people in it ... and it had a statue of Lenin in it, and people hating, for good enough reasons, Lenin, may not have appreciated Jews honouring him with a statue.
Italy - only had camps for Jews, or one such camp, La Riziera, during Salò Republic. It only delivered Jews to Germany during Salò Republic. [a puppet régime to Hitler, for those unaware of history]
Austria involves Burgenland - formerly Hungaria, but German speaking. Some of the Nazis were from there. And Calvinist Hungarians like Gyula Gömbös* were far more directly involved in formulating Nazi accusations against Jews.*
Most Calvinists in Austria would be, I would either say from Burgenland, or from Burgenland and Vienna.
Austria and South Germany have two things in common - more dislike for Jews than North Germany, and more dislike for Hitler too.
In Berlin I heard 70 % Bavarians but 90 % in Berlin voted Hitler in 1933.
Why? Bc Hitler was progressive.
Now, what were progressives doing those days? Two states in Canada and two states in US were forcefully sterilizing people. Jews were not one of the targetted ethnicities. Sweden and Norway were sterilising Lapps, and Denmark was sterilising Esquimaux on Greenland. I think they were also sterilising tinkers. But they were not doing it to Jews. Hitler targetted a similar backward minority same way, namely Gipsies, and one hard proponent for his line was a Burgenlander, whom the Austrofascists put in prison. Portschy. [Still no English or French version of that wiki, for some reason.]
Now, Hitler did not only do it to Gipsies, he did it to Jews too. This means, 1945 there was a reaction.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Alberta and British Columbia and two states in US continued ... bc their victims were not Jewish. Early to mid seventies this stopped, bc someone came up with "hey wait, seems a bit like what Hitler was doing to Jews and Gipsies". In mid eighties Jews started the policy (on occasion of Catholics comparing abortion to Holocaust) of saying "never compare any other crime to the Holocaust, it is unique". Perhaps they did not want abortion banned? I don't know.
I do know that Spain while not very pro-Jewish in mentality, while certainly honouring not only the teaching on Jews participating in the guilt of the Christ-killers, but also honouring a child martyr killed by Jews, actually was one country of refuge to Jews, at least if Sephardic, during WW-II.
- * (footnote to previous)
- I searched for a forgotten reference, seems Gömbös was Lutheran, and I could not find the reference for what I recall as "Gömbös thesis," so I might have thought of some other man's or place's thesis, with a Hungarian name including ö.
I also looked up Béla Kun, who in 1937 looked very close to Hitchens.
"Béla Kun 1937, Official mug shot made by NKVD after arrest 1937 - https://www.sakharov-center.ru/asfcd/martirolog/?t=page&id=8282 original: Центральный архив ФСБ России"
- 2:16 Has it occurred to you, (ok, not Hitch, he is dead, but you other guys) that covetuousness, while a "thought crime" is one not punished directly by the Jewish authorities?
You have rules on when to stone a murderer, on when to stone an adulterer and on when to stone someone committing perjury.
You have rules on how much to pay back on when you have stolen without violence (4 times original amount, that is why tax collectors St Matthew and Zacchaeus both resolved to pay back 4 times over whatever they took too much).
You do not have any actual penalties for this thought crime.
You do, however, have a collective and family ritual of reciting this ban on those thought crimes at home, to your children.
Could it be somewhat educational? Could be. Could this have stopped some adulteries, thefts, and actually through either of them, murders? Could be.
Was there anyone involved to actually round up offenders on these thought crimes? No, and that is why Ten Commandments is not 1984.
Enterprise and emulation are not forbidden.
We are forbidden to covet what already belongs to someone, but not forbidden to want as much, gaining it by ourselves, without taking it from him in any way.
Unless it's him volunteering to, of course.
2:33 "though it lumps in are your women folk ..."
Deuteronomy 5:21 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
Note very well, wife is taken before possessions.
In other words, sexual illicit desire is worse than all others.
It seems that LXX readings of Exodus 20 have the same arrangement.
So, no, women are not just lumped in with possessions here.
- 3:00 What does "cardinal" Bernhard Law have to do with Catholicism?
3:34 If BL would not tell Hitchens, I can tell, for all or most of 15 years, Stephen Fry was in a state of mortal sin:
"Fry was in a 15-year relationship with Daniel Cohen, which ended in 2010."
Barring of course the "possibility" of madness or dementia making him irresponsible for his actions.
The modernist excuse for "not judging" being that "overriding passion" is comparable and therefore absolves from responsibility, but presumably Stephen Fry was not the victim of "overriding passion" for 24/24, 7/7, 365/365 except leap years when it would have been 366/366. Presumably he had at least some clear moments, meaning if in those he decided to stay in a relationship involving sodomy, he committed mortal sin.
"it's a form of love and deserves our respect for that reason"
However laudible it may be that two persons love each other in some way, it is not and I mean not ever laudible that they "love" having deliberately infertile sex with each other.
I don't mean involuntary infertility, like old couples continuing to have sex, though stopping after menopause is laudible, and I also don't mean foreplay as not being fertile of itself, if emotionally directed to a coitus which potentially is.
But I do mean anything not even allowing an ejaculation to result in a pregnancy.
If Fry and Cohen had been a dynamic duo, with no sex (which is how Bob Kane imagined them), well, best wishes with keeping chaste.
But apparently, this was not the case.
3:51 No, he should not have been proud to have Fry as his babysitter.
Nor should anyone now, as long as Fry and Spencer are "married".
3:59 I don't think a priest would have agreed to babysit for Hitchens anyway ...
I did read of an actor converting, and that after finding out how people trusted Catholic priests.
"While serving in the Royal Navy, Guinness had planned to become an Anglican priest. In 1954, while he was filming Father Brown in Burgundy, Guinness, who was in costume as a Catholic priest, was mistaken for a real priest by a local child. Guinness was far from fluent in French, and the child apparently did not notice that Guinness did not understand him but took his hand and chattered while the two strolled; the child then waved and trotted off. The confidence and affection the clerical attire appeared to inspire in the boy left a deep impression on the actor. When their son was ill with polio at the age of 11, Guinness began visiting a church to pray. A few years later in 1956, Guinness converted to the Roman Catholic Church. His wife, who was of paternal Sephardi Jewish descent, followed suit in 1957 while he was in Sri Lanka filming The Bridge on the River Kwai, and she informed him only after the event. Every morning, Guinness recited a verse from Psalm 143, "Cause me to hear your loving kindness in the morning"."
And, yes, I would have been proud to have Alec Guiness as a babysitter, even despite this:
"In his biography, Alec Guinness: The Unknown, Garry O'Connor reports that Guinness was arrested and fined 10 guineas (£10.50) for a homosexual act in a public lavatory in Liverpool in 1946. Guinness is said to have avoided publicity by giving his name to police and court as "Herbert Pocket", the name of the character he played in Great Expectations. No record of any arrest has ever been found, however."
Especially as there is a serious doubt about the guilt:
" Piers Paul Read, in his 2003 biography, suggests "The rumour is possibly a conflation of stories about Alec's 'cottaging' and the arrest of John Gielgud, in October 1953, in a public lavatory in Chelsea after dining with the Guinnesses at St. Peter's Square."  This suggestion was not made until April 2001, eight months after his death, when a BBC Showbiz article related that new books claimed that Guinness was bisexual and that he had kept his sexuality private from the public eye and that the biographies further said only his closest friends and family members knew he had sexual relationships with men."
Hope those rumours were untrue, though.
My sources about Guiness and Fry being:
- 4:30 [people saying] "slavery is evil, but the Church wouldn't agree"
On slave hunt, that is hunting down free men to make them slaves, the Church definitely did agree.
It is evil.
Even slave trade was banned by Gregory XVI.
Now, keeping slaves who already are so? No, I do not think that is always evil.
For one thing, in many societies, that is precisely how people get their livelihood. For another, some people in legal formalities free were at some times worse off than slaves, bc of how wage earners were treated in Chicago, for instance, at the time of the Civil War.
This is not meant to excuse the racialism of ex-slave holders as evident from certain Southron attitudes to blacks post-bellum.
I particularly abhor what happened in the two states which allowed forced sterilisations - which slaveholders ante-bellum had not been allowed.
I recently learned, 1920, women all over the US got rights to vote. In the South or parts of it, this was only white women.
If this is true, this is the kind of reform which really makes things worse.
1865 - 1920. A black couple, one vote, the man, a white couple, one vote, the man.
1920 - 1963. A black couple, one vote, the man, a white couple, two votes, the man and his wife.
1963 - present. A black couple, two votes, a white couple, two votes, either of them, the man and his wife.
And soon after 1920, two states had forced sterilisations running.
And soon after 1963, they stopped it.
But prior to 1865, as far as I know, sterilising blacks by force was not allowed.
However, psychiatry started out (and this was probably not too well known in Rome) those decades with diagnoses like "drapetomania" - a slave running off is considered a "sick man".
Precisely as certain modernists would consider Fry not just a guilty man, but a sick man.
No, I don't think Pius IX was gravely wrong in 1860-65.
I do think Pius XI was definitely spot on in Casti Connubii, condemning forced sterilisation.
Some have pretended "Mit brennender Sorge" was the encyclical in which Nazi eugenics were condemned. No, "Mit brennender Sorge" condemned rulers disregarding Christianity like Hitchens does.
It was already known since 1931, date of Casti Connubii, that forced sterilisations are against the ten commandments.
4:45 God did already reveal to Moses that slave hunting was wrong.
While in NT slaveholders are not considered as criminals, per se, slavehunters are.
For the one, Ephesians 6:  Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ:
 Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart,  With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men.  Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free.  And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him.
For the other I Corinthians 6:10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
For the last category, the Latin has "rapaces". It seems to mean or include slavehunters.
Even clearer, I Tim 1:  Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,  For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,
Menstealers? Did you get that? Other name for them : slave hunters.
Whether Kunta Kinte ever said "toubab fa" meaning "death to the slavehunters", St Paul did say sth meaning that.
Latin for menstealers "plagiariis," and it doesn't mean using some writer's character in your own work without asking, calling that what is now known as "plagiarism" is simply a joke between authors, to begin with, it means in classical latin hunting someone down to make him a slave.
This is the rationale for Gregory XVI as well as for Casti Connubii.
Obviously, a state sponsored actor who forces someone to submit to getting his cojones cut off at some point is while doing so treating that person as a slave and therefore has previously to doing so stolen that person, treated him as a slavehunter treats the free men wanted for slaves.
How come Vatican was so much more clearsighted between 1931 and 1971 than four states in US and Canada?
Well, being commissioned to preserve God's revelation vs being a Protestant and secularised state may have sth to do with it.
- 5:16 Half a chromastone away from a chimpanzee? Or half a chromosome?
Subtitles say the first, but the subtitles are erratic.
Whichever thing Hitchens said, he disqualified himself from speaking on human origins.
It should make even Evolutionists squirm.
- On the closing statement, I'll add that Fry and Spencer would need a firm purpose of amendment, soon.
- From Fry's biography references:
The Brauns were members of Vienna's 200,000-strong Jewish community. Stephen paid an emotional visit to the house in which they lived, and was startled to see a plaque commemorating the house's inhabitants, among them Rosa's parents - Stephen's great-grandfather and great-grandmother - Berta and Samuel.
They had remained there until 1942, at the height of the Nazi terror, when they were deported to a ghetto in Riga, Latvia, along with 65,000 other Viennese Jews. Only a small number of those sent to Riga survived. The others, Berta and Samuel among them, were killed.
1942 - after Austrofascist had been exchanged to Nazi, in government of Austria, then Ostmark.