>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Dennis Claxton
><ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
>
>His predictable ramblings, with no clear purpose.
Oh fuck you. I posted information that problematizes, to say the least, your claim that what's being written about the pope's background and actions is blatantly false. You've offered nothing substantial to back up that assertion. Besides, dissecting particulars written about Benedict is a dodge because he is hardly the whole story.
>"[T]he church hierarchy" (whatever that is)
It's the small group of men who run the church. It's not that complicated. If you'd paid the slightest attention to any of the stuff I sent it's laid out pretty clearly. For example:
>The Roman Curia is the Vatican bureaucracy. Most people know little
>about the men who run the curia. But press coverage of the clergy
>abuse crisis is closing in on cardinals whose blunders in the crisis
>have begun to draw criticism from other Princes of the Church.
The other day you said good luck rooting out pedophilia from a group with a billion or so members. That's another dodge because we're not talking about members. We're talking about the few thousand who run things.
>Put an actual thesis on the table, and I'll either
>refute or agree with it.
Read something besides Vatican spin and I'll think about it.
So far you're just a church apologist.