Monday, April 19, 2010

Does Hitchens Fight Fair?

He has no way of knowing whether or not Martin Luther King was a Christian, but he's sure that Adolf Hitler was.

I'm sure everyone has heard about how Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are urging UK human rights lawyers to have Pope Benedict arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he arrives for an official visit in September.

I remember the first time I saw Christopher Hitchens on TV several years ago. I forget what the topic of the program was but the ex-Marxist made my jaw drop when he drolly remarked that "Mother Teresa is just a mouthpiece for the Vatican."

After 9/11 Hitchens scrubbed away the last residues of his leftist ways and became an ardent neo-con supporter of George Bush's War on Terror, which for Hitchens is really a War on Islam. In fact, as a committed atheist he has extended his own personal battle to a War on Religion in general, with a special virulence in his heart reserved for Catholicism, a virulence he shares with his confrere Dawkins.

He's certainly one of the most visible of the militant "New Atheists" and is often seen on the circuit debating theists and Christian apologists such as Dinesh D'Souza. In the UK last year, Intelligence Squared hosted a debate on the proposition "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world." Hitchens was teamed up with the actor David Fry against Anne Widdecombe MP and Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria. The Catholic side got massacred. When they polled their audience, Intelligence Squared said they had never seen such a lopsided result. If you can bear it, you can watch it here. It was a debacle.

Hitchens is a formidable and polished debater, quite capable of eviscerating his opponents with his enyclopedic knowledge of history and his sharp, keenly poisonous dry wit. My daughter T and I almost went to see him debate Rabbi David Wolpe when he was in Boston a few weeks back, but Anne had to work that night and we needed to stay home.

One thing I've noticed about Hitchens, though. When he debates someone he's not above using cheap tricks and he doesn't always fight fair. This was brought home to me quite clearly when I saw him in a Bloggingheads.TV discussion with the author Robert Wright. Wright is not a theist. He writes about evolutionary psychology and non-zero sum game theory, yet Hitchens argued with him as if he was a theist anyway. It appears to be the only thing he knows how to do. He's like an old record player that can run at only one speed.

Still, I'm amazed by his glibness and his command of the language. Despite the fact that he's clearly got a buzz on, fencing adroitly with Wright while he imbibes from a glass of red wine - his pupils dilated as large as dinner plates - he manages to talk all around Wright, even when he's on the defensive.

I'd like you to see these clips and let me know what you think. In a 2-hour discussion, Wright and Hitchens were discussing Hitchens' book God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Wright was pressing him on just what he meant by everything, pointing out that religion often motivates people to do great good; people like Martin Luther King whose religion had motivated him to pursue justice in the Civil Rights struggle. Watch how Hitches responds...

Amazing. Hitchens claims that without having known the man, he has no way of knowing whether MLK was a sincere and committed believer or not. He goes on to suggest that using the pulpit in the South would have had to have been done tactically out of necessity, implying a degree of cynicism on MLK's part. I don't see why that would be so. The churches in the South were just as segregated as everything else was back then. White Southern Baptists proved they were quite capable of bombing black churches if they felt a need to.

He also claims that "Social Democrats" such as Bayard Rustin and Asa Philip Randolph, co-organizers of the 1963 March on Washington along with King, deserved at least as much credit for the success of the Civil Rights movement as MLK. That's an interesting point. It may very well be that they don't get the credit they deserve, but I'm not sure that they were as "non-godly" as Hitchens suggests. After all, Bayard Rustin went on to become the very first African-American member of the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame.

In the clip directly above, well, I'll leave it up to you as impartial observers to decide if you agree with Hitchens that "the American Communist Party's most shining record was in the Civil Rights movement" and that "heroic communists" deserve just as much credit for being willing to lay down their lives for it as Dr. King.

Things really start to get interesting, however, when Wright challenges Hitchens on how some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were sponsored by non-theists, such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Hitchens replies cooly "Oh, to the contrary..."

Despite the mountain of sermons written by Martin Luther King, Hitchens has no way of knowing if he was a sincere and committed Christian believer, but since Hitler signed a concordat with the Vatican and because Wehrmacht belt buckles read "Gott Mit Uns," then Hitler must have been. Where Hitchens sees cynicism on MLK's part, he sees nothing but the mark of a true believer on Hitler's part. Wright does his best to call him out on this, and rightly so.

World War I German Army belt buckle with imperial insignia and "Gott Mit Uns" inscription. Yes, World War II German army belt buckles had "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us) embossed on them. They did in World War I too, and probably well before that. It was merely a continuation of Prussian military tradition. The Wehrmacht was as full of conscripts as any other army. The SS Divisions, however, were full of Nazi Party members. They were covered in pagan-influenced SS runes and deaths-head insignias. All SS troops were required to renounce their church memberships and affiliations. If the Nazis had a theology at all, it hearkened back to ancient Germanic myths and romantic notions of Aryan supermen.

If you look out on the web you will see all sorts of conflicting statements about whether or not Hitler was a believing Christian. You can take all that any way you like but to consider Hitler a Mass-going Catholic, or as someone who took Catholic doctrines seriously at all would be utterly absurd. All I can tell you is that I've looked up every indexed reference to the Catholic Church in Mein Kampf and the only thing Hitler was interested in as far as religion was concerned was subsuming both the Catholic and Protestant churches under an overarching Pan-Germanism. The German Volk was the only ideal that mattered to him.

Hitchens also brings up a reference to the basilica near El Escorial in Spain. He's referring to El Valle de los Caidos, General Franco's massive monument to the Nationalist Civil War dead, built primarily upon the sweat and blood of his defeated Republican prisoners. Hitchens says that if you look up at the ceiling of the basilica you will see a swastika and a steel Nazi helmet embedded in the mosaic.

I have found no independent corroboration of this, but I've never been there. I find it hard to believe that a consecrated basilica, even one as distasteful and dubious as Franco's garish monument, has a swastika on display inside of it, even if there are tapestries celebrating the victory of the Nationalist forces there. About half of the people who read this blog have lived in Spain. Maybe they can let me know, if they've been there themselves. Putting the best-face on it for Hitchens' sake, perhaps he is confused. Spanish army helmets, worn by both the Nationalist and Republican forces during the conflict, did not look entirely unlike German army helmets (see image in poster). Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

Don't get me wrong. The last thing I'm interested in doing is defending Francisco Franco or the Catholic Church's role during the Spanish Civil War. I'm defending neither. Christopher Hitchens seems to me, however, to be a man very interested in words and in the precise use of words. Just as I'm irritated to see the word "fascist" being used today to describe President Obama, it irritates me somewhat to hear the same word used to describe General Franco (although not anywhere near as much).

Was Franco really a fascist? He certainly wasn't a National Socialist, as Hitchens claims. Despite having received help from Hitler during the Civil War, Franco resisted strong attempts to draw Spain into the Axis Powers and he never rounded up Jews for the Nazis. Yes, Franco was a bad man. Franco was an authoritarian military man, a believer in "law and order," a staunch anti-communist, a believer in traditional Catholicism and of his society's traditional class structures built upon latifundist lines. He was certainly vindictive and cruel towards his defeated adversaries. He was a military strongman much along the lines of what you would see in the recent decades past in Latin America, but I don't know if I'd call the drab, listless and colorless country he ran until the 1970's a true totalitarian state. Jose Antonio Primavera was the leader of the fascist Falange Espanola at the start of the Spanish Civil War, and he was executed by the Republicans. His replacement, the slow-witted and uncharismatic Manuel Hedilla was easily dominated by Franco. Franco co-opted the Falange and all the other right-wing groups that fought on the Nationalist side, such as the Carlists and Monarchists, under one umbrella he could control. The old joke in Spain was that the system could more rightly be called "cunadismo" (brother-in-law-ism) instead of "fascismo" because it was run by Franco's brother-in-law Ramon Serrano Suner (who died in 2003 at the ripe old age of 102) and various Opus Dei technocrats.

Hitchens insinuates that the origin of fascism can be found in Europe's southern Catholic countries, citing Franco, Salazar and Mussolini as examples, perhaps based upon the Catholic teachings on corporatism and solidarism. Now, maybe it's been a tepid defense of the Church on my part in regard to this particular point. I suppose it may be, but I think Hitchens is being a little more than imprecise in his use of terms such as fascism and National Socialism, especially in how they supposedly intersect with Catholicism.

After all, the first real fascist was Benito Mussolini, and he was an avowed atheist. In his Doctrine of Fascism he wrote this about religion:
The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the in­dividual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Those who perceive nothing beyond opportunistic considerations in the religious policy of the Fascist regime fail to realize that Fascism is not only a system of government but also and above all a system of thought... The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State...The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indif­ference to Roman Catholicism, the special, positive religion of Italians. The State has not got a theology but it has a moral code.... The Fascist loves his neighbor, but the word neighbor “does not stand for some vague and unseizable conception. Love of one's neighbor does not exclude necessary educational severity; still less does it exclude differentiation and rank. Fascism will have nothing to do with universal embraces; as a member of the community of nations it looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in all their manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances.
In that system, religion... Catholicism, in fact, is only useful in the way it serves the State. This is not how Catholicism or any other religion defines itself.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the exchange however, is that Hitchens actually felt personally insulted when Wright suggested that Hitler was a secularist... and presumably, like him. Wright was absolutely dumbstruck and incredulous at this.

Hitchens didn't think Wright meant to insult him, but suppose he had? Suppose Wright had wanted to link him personally to secular atrocities? Could he have done so?

By some estimates, as many as as seven million people were killed in China's Cultural Revolution in the years between 1967 and 1972. What was Hitchens doing during those years? He had recently joined a Marxist group called the Luxemburgists and he started writing for International Socialism magazine. Can we therefore say that Christopher Hitchens has some of the blood of the Cultural Revolution on his hands?

Unfair ad hominem, perhaps, but no more unfair than what he dishes out himself.


Garpu said...

An interesting post. I've read his article on waterboarding (it was Hitchens, right?) But I can't bring myself to watch the videos here...I'm not up for dealing with fundies, no matter the ideology or stripe.

Jeff said...

I saw his waterboarding video. He subjected himself to it after claiming that it wasn't really torture. He lasted all of about two seconds.

shera10 said...

"He lasted all of about two seconds" and of course he knew he could stop it in just a second. People waterboarded thought to die.

Jeff said...

Well, Hitchens knows that waterboarding is more than "extreme interrogation" now. I give him credit for having the guts to put his money where his mouth is.

I'm not sure why he didn't know better before. After all, you'd think that knowing that the Inquisition did it too should have been enough for him,

shera10 said...

did you see Inter-Barca? :-))))

Jeff said...

Yes. >:-( Mourinho the genius!

I didn't realize beforehand how good Milito and Cambiasso are. Messi is not the only Argentinian wizard.

Pep and his boys have their work cut out for them at the Camp Nou next week.

Joe said...

For me to make a make a call on Hitchens would be way off...I am the blindfolded guy who touched the elephant trunk and then was asked to describe what an elephant looks like. No idea. But from what I saw of your videos he did not seem terribly unfair.

Mourinho the genius!...had no Messi to worry about. Fun to watch Barça these days isn't it? Interesting race with Real Madrid too.

Joe said...

I have been to the Valle de los Caidos many times (most recently just a few weeks ago.) It is at the center of attention these days as the PSOE party's initiative "La Memoria Historica" is literally unearthing the tens of thousands of people buried in mass graves around Spain including around 30,000 in "El Valle de los Caidos" alone. A lot of sophisticated analysis about Franco has been written over the years, calling him everything from a fascist to a pragmatist. More than anything else, he certainly seems to have been an opportunist, finding himself at the helm at the end of the war; leveraging Hitler to bargain certain advantages in exchange for Guernica, etc... all while pulling off the role of El Caudillo and bastion of Catholicism. Only 2 things were allowed under the canopy carried during state/religious acts: The Eucharist and Franco.

So I don't know exactly what he was or what label to give him, but the more I know (the longer I live here), the less I like him and his alliance/association with the Church. And he WAS the church here for nearly a half century.

Goes back to Woody and what I said on your last post Jeff. If Christ came back to see what was being done in his name, he could never stop throwing up!

Jeff said...


What's all this business about Materazzi attacking Balotelli after the game? I know Balotelli reacted badly to the crowd, but had he been taunted by racial slurs?

I believe poor Marco may really be insane. Did you see Mourinho having to frantically rip the jewelry off him before sending him in for the closing minutes against Chelsea?


Fun to watch Barça these days isn't it? Interesting race with Real Madrid too.

It is. They play a beautiful game with all that pin-point passing accuracy. They're a lot of fun to watch. Yeah, Real lost both clasicos (great games), yet they are still hanging in there just a point behind.

Jeff said...

More later...

shera10 said...


Balotelli is a spoiled and still young boy. He didn’t play the last 4 or 5 matches because he had an argument with Mourinho and refused to apologize. And Anyway Inter has many big champions, so he didn’t play many times as he wanted, so he wants change team. In a tv talkshow he wore the Milan shirt! it was a joke, but not very smart. So the crowd is against him.

Not only Materazzi, but also Milito, Lucio and Chivu attacked him in the locker room.


Jeff said...

Sounds like quite a victory celebration! What fun.

Super Mario... I'll admit, his foolish haircut alone is almost a good enough reason to assault him.

Still, if he acts like a spoiled little schoolboy, it's because he practically is one. He's not much older than some of your students.

In a tv talkshow he wore the Milan shirt!

AC ??? Ah, there's the real reason! He committed the unpardonable sin! ;-D

shera10 said...

" Ah, there's the real reason! He committed the unpardonable sin! ;-D"

And once or twice he entered in the locker room whistling cheerfully the Milan AC anthem!!!!!SACRILEGE!!

Jeff said...

Trade Balotelli for Marco Borriello.

This is good Serie A talk. I'm enjoying this.

shera10 said...

But I understand the poor Balotelli, he is young and he receives very often many racial offences by supporters of other teams, especially from Juventus supporters because he is Italian, he was adopted by an Italian family when he was kid, and as a chief of the Juventus supported stated “ Italian N@@@@rs cannot exist”
So I like him very much.

Jeff said...

Ah, what do you expect from those Juve thugs? They're almost as bad as the English hooligans. Weren't they the ones who used to mix it up with Liverpool supporters years ago?

Jeff said...

All joking aside for a moment...


To back up your point, in addition to the wonderful things I saw during my two visits to Spain, I saw some strange and disturbing things too, especially on the first trip in 1985.

In Toledo I saw placques from Hitler and Mussolini congratulating the defenders of the Alcazar for holding out against the Republican forces in 1936. On the Gran Via I saw a shop window with fascist paraphernalia and statuettes of Hitler. In 1991 in Madrid I saw a public park overgrown with weeds close to my hotel. Snooping around a bit, I realized it was built as a memorial to the 'Division Azul' which had been sent to fight against the Russians during World War II.

For all of this strange brand of Franquista Catholicism, the basilica mentioned by Hitchens is important, because it goes well beyond Francoism. That basilica at the Valle de los Caidos was consecrated by Pope John XXIII of all people.

Pope John, of course, was the Papal Nuncio to Turkey during the war and he rescued thousands of Jews, for which he was awarded the honor of being referred to as a 'Righteous Gentile.' When he was Pope he welcomed a delegation of rabbis at the Vatican, sat down amongst them and declared "I am Joseph, your brother." He convened the Second Vatican Council, without which I probably wouldn't call myself a Catholic today.

Hitchens says that this basilica that John XXIII consecrated has a swastika and a Nazi helmet embedded in the mosaic, clearly visible as you look up. Knowing who John was, I find this hard to believe.

If you should ever happen to go there again, could you please check on that? In the greater scheme of things it may seem like a small matter, but it's important for me to know.

shera10 said...


"Hitchens says that this basilica that John XXIII consecrated has a swastika and a Nazi helmet embedded in the mosaic, clearly visible as you look up. Knowing who John was, I find this hard to believe."

So do I. But the Catholic church and the right, and far right have always been strong allied.
Mussolini as a former socialist was atheist, anticlerical and strongly against the Church, but he changed his attitude when he came into the power.
Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty:, and Pio XI speaking of Mussolini said: “he is a gift of Providence”, that’s a gift of God to Italy.
Mussolini exploited the Church, and the Church exploited Mussolini.

It was just the same with Pinochet and the militar dictatorships in Argentina.

Btw, last year I read a book L’Isola del silenzio, (La isla del silencio), that relates the complicity between catholic church and dictators in Argentina.
Did you know it?



Jeff said...


Pinochet... He was Cardinal Sodano's friend.

You know, the Catholic Church's response to the challenge from Communism was very similar in a lot of ways to that taken by the United States in regard to its relationship with repressive authoritarian governments. In both cases, I think there was a realpolitik that calculated that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," or if not to put that extreme a face on it, "the lesser of two evils."

In the 1920s and 1930s not everyone was able to see what would eventually lead to the Holocaust, although there were certainly some people who did.

The communists were openly atheistic and anti-clerical. Because of their own views on 'corporatism' which sounded at least a little bit like what was being said by the fascists at the time, it seems like the church hierarchy was more willing to make an accomodation with them, especially since the fascists were in favor of using religion as a means of social control. In theory at least, fascism was supposed to be more radical than reactionary. It emphasized class unity over class struggle, which probably appealed to the churchmen's own views on solidarism. In practice, of course, we know that fascism didn't work that way in the least.

I'm not defending the hierarchy on this. That's not to excuse these churchmen at all, especially those who had their eyes wide open during and after the war, and still helped Nazis escape using the "Rat Line" and helped build these authoritarian regimes elsewhere. Hitchens also has a point in at least this much - persistent anti-semitism has had a lot to do with it.

last year I read a book L’Isola del silenzio, (La isla del silencio), that relates the complicity between catholic church and dictators in Argentina.
Did you know it?

That link was truncated, so I wasn't able to get to it. I did read a description of the book here:

Yes, "The Dirty War." Remnants from L’Action Française... Have you ever read Brian Moore's 'The Statement'

It's a rather good novel you could get through rather quickly.

By the way, that Cardinal Rating website is very interesting. I'm going to bookmark it.

Jeff said...

"Hitchens says that this basilica that John XXIII consecrated has a swastika and a Nazi helmet embedded in the mosaic, clearly visible as you look up. Knowing who John was, I find this hard to believe."

So do I...

On this particular point about the mosaic, it was a matter of my own personal edification as far as Pope John was concerned.

The more I think about it, though, the more I want to look into this. I know it might seem like a small point when the whole concept of the place itself is wrong. As far as forced labor, mass graves, and dictator's tombs go, these are matters of Spanish history that the Spanish people need to work out largely on their own. If Hitchens, however, is telling the truth about a swastika and a Nazi helmet on display in a consecrated basilica, that shouldn't be allowed to stand. If this isn't all a lie, they should be removed.

I do have some minor contacts who should be able to push something like this up the chain a bit. If these odious things are indeed there, it shouldn't be that hard to get rid of them. At least I hope not.

shera10 said...

intresting book. Paul Touvier was hidden by the capuchins in their convent here in Valle d'Aosta, in 1988.

When he died the funerail Mass was a Tridentine Mass, of course.

shera10 said...


“I'm not defending the hierarchy on this.”

I get your argument and you are right about the past. But now, in 2010, Soviet Union has collapsed and the Communism as well, here in Europe at least. So I don’t understand why the Vatican hierarchy ( Bertone) and the President of the Italian bishops’ conference have embraced so eagerly Berlusconi and his allied the xenophobic lega nord party.

It’s no about abortion, Berlusconi shares the same views of Obama about it, so what?

It is about same-sex marriage and civil same- sex partnerships and money and power. Berlusconi granted exemptions of taxes to the church, aids to catholic private schools, and recognizes ( only when this suits him, of course) the leadership of the catholic church.

So Bertone prefers live in a racist, xenophobic society, but without gay marriage. It’s more catholic

Liam said...

Hi Jeff,

As always, an interesting post and an interesting conversation. As far as the Franco/Fascist thing, yes, that's one of those simplistic things that lazy journalists always seems to fall into. On the other hand, although the appeal to fascism (getting the external support of Germany or Italy or the internal support of the Falange) was more a question of expediency than ideology for Franco, he did set up his regime under a quasi-fascist model at the beginning, especially regarding labor policies and education, and if Germany had won the war, he probably would have continued to do so. The "dicta-blanda" of the 60s and 70s should not make us forget that life under the regime immediately after the war was probably much like life under more ideologically pure fascist regimes. It was totalitarian and brutally repressive. Franco may not technically have been a fascist at heart, but he was a repressive dictator, fostered a cult of his odious personality, and was a mass-murderer.

Btw, have you seen the news about the demonstrations today in Spain, Argentina, and other places in favor of Judge Garzon?

I don't know about the Valle de Caidos thing. I certainly wouldn't trust Hitchens on it. I wouldn't trust him any farther than I could throw his bloated, whiskey-soaked, war-mongering, self-satisfied self. His comments on MLK are a great example of his bad faith style of arguing and he himself is an example of how being clever does not equal being intelligent and especially does not equal being wise.

Jeff said...


I feel badly for you. Living in Italy, you don't have the luxury of merely considering Berlusconi to be a comical figure.

Which was worse, having those governments that used to collpase every few months, or this endless Belusconi era?

Jeff said...

Thank you Doctor Moore.

See, this is why I love having comment contributions from a college professor made kindly available. Not only does Liam always sum things up nicely in his usual cogent fashion, but we also get to enjoy such prose as his colorful description of the perpetually pickled Mister Hitchens.

I hadn't heard about that Judge Garzon case before. Very interesting. I see the Clean Hands Union has lined up against him. I have a tough time getting a read on that group... The Civil War still stirs up intense passions over there. It's something we'd do well to make note of here, with our casual use of over-heated rhetoric.

Liam said...

From what I've read, the Clean Hands group -- stealing the Mani Puliti name -- is nothing but a group of extreme right arch-fraquistas started by an associate of Blas Pinar.

Jeff said...


Are they the same as this group?


I didn't realize the character in Brian Moore's book was based so closely on one actual individual. Wiki says of Paul Touvier:

It was not until 1989 that Touvier was found hiding in the Society of Saint Pius X Priory in Nice. The SSPX stated at the time that Touvier had been allowed to live in the Priory as "an act of charity to a homeless man."

Besides the charges attached to the massacre at Rillieux-la-Pape, Touvier was alleged to have played an important part in the execution of a prominent human rights leader and his wife, as well as being involved in several deportations of other Jews. During the two years following Touvier's arrest, 20 additional accusations were made in the media.

Paul Touvier was granted provisional release in July 1991 and his trial for complicity in crimes against humanity only began on March 17, 1994. He expressed remorse for his actions, saying that he thought of the seven Jewish victims of Rillieux-la-Pape every day. A Traditionalist Catholic priest of the Society of Saint Pius X sat beside him at the defense table, acting as his spiritual advisor. On April 20, a nine-person jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. A 1995 appeal was rejected by the Court.

Well, well... The SSPX again.

Liam said...

No, they're just a far right group that is incorporated as a union. The leader is associated with this Spanish version of Le Pen. Nothing to do with the Manos blancos anti-terrorism protest movement.

shera10 said...


“Well, well... The SSPX again”.

Yes, as usual.
Here in Italy a sort of chaplain of Lega Nord, is fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz, a SSPX priest. He was expulsed by Fellay, when he gave his support to bishop Williamson’s views, but he continues his “ministry” anyway.

Lately he burned, after Mass, The Vatican II constitutions:

Borghezio a leader of Lega Nord, is a fascist very close to SSPX.
In this video, took with an hidden camera years ago, he teaches to French fascists how to come into power “using, also, the Catholicism”

In France Sarkosy has distanced himself from Le Pen, in Italy Berlusconi , to save his financial empire built with bribery, corruption and helps by the Mafia, has chosen to Govern with Lega Nord, that every day is more xenophobic.
And, as I repeat all the time, it’s disheartening to see the catholic hierarchy to back Berlusconi. Bertone is blind, as was blind Pio XII.


Jeff said...

I watched those videos. They remind me of second-rate actors in a bad comic opera.

Absurd. Unforunately, they seem to be taken seriously in the highest levels of the Curia.