Road to Damascus still a place for conversions

This is a definition of not women in charge, but both men and women playing their roles. John Paul II addressed this brilliantly in his Theology of the Body.

It is a recognition of the value of a woman's prespective that has so persistantly been rejected by men, in solving the problems of the world.

And it's a recognition that the Pope's are aware of the coming actuallization of women's potential in spite of prior rejection, in the resolution of worldwide problems.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

If only women ran the world --- I linger for completion of that thought.?.

If women ran the world, no dispute would ever get beyond sniping and the occasional catfight! I guess it just seems obvious to me that, in general, women have much stronger empathy with others than men and have little trouble making that immediate emotional connection with others... there are exceptions, but the vast majority of women would never wage war if they were in charge. Of course, there are many noble and even saintly peace activists and nonviolent people who are men, but in general, it would be a much less violent world indeed if women were in charge.

The woman that wants to be the leader of the free world--Hillary Clinton--is busy defining her capacity to support and go to war.

I can vote for candidates of either gender that understand the imperative to find peaceful solutions to co-exist on this shrinking planet.

Tell that to the women I work with! Not only that, but everyone assures me that all the infighting, backstabbing (well thankfully they haven't taken the knives to each other, yet), tattling, name calling, (need I continue) are completely normal in any woman dominated office or place of business. I love them all, but to put them in charge of anything would be to guarantee disaster.

Now I do think women are capable of being leaders, and I have known a few who haven't sold their feminity to become leaders. However, I think that while the picture would be different with women in charge, I doubt it would be any prettier (although public buildings would have better decorative style ;-) ).

Any one who has ever worked in the competitive and male dominated world of business would be able to say that men come equipped with all of the necessary tools for infighting and climbing the ladder of success on the shoulders and heads of their colleagues. George Bush didn't get where he is through competency. He got there through well-placed connections that allowed him to climb. I'm sure there are at least figurative bodies in the wake of his climb.

True leadership in either gender is still a rare find. We pine for some true leaders.

My workplace experience at various locales is exactly the same. Women are more likely to engage in petty jealousies, back stabbing, undermining, etc.

What I loved about working with men is how they would form cliques and then verbally assault, harrass and abuse the non members. This frequently led to physical fights, a past time apparently enjoyed by all. Maybe this was just a phenomenon of the mining industry. Although, come to think of it, I've also seen some of this on the golf course.

Ah, and those golf clubs occasionally sailing through the air...

more than once.

How very sad for you that you don't know other women! Where is it that you work? On the other hand, are you certain that the two genders are that different from each other? While it is true that science has found that women talk much more on the whole, and are more interactive socially, men can be terrible backstabbers, gossips, name-callers (don't you remember grade school days?) and terrible infighters.

Where do you think all those nasty negative ads on TV came from during the last Election? Women?

No, sad to say, here today, we are "equally" capable of these sorry character traits.
I am not so sure women, with the petty squabbles you accuse them of, would go to WAR quite so often, though, knowing it was their precious sons and daughters who would have to die. I just keep thinking of the Neo-cons: plotting, leaking, spilling the beans, etc. What did they not do that the women in your workplace do, EXCEPT that their actions were on a "national" level and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and a present quaqmire?

Please re-read my post. I know plently of women who do fall outside my work experience (I would not even consider this typical, but I do believe power often corrupts I point to a poor example of women working together as a microcosom of what we could have "if only women ruled the world")

As I said, the picture would be different (more spies and covert deals, less direct aggression, perhaps?) but not neccessarily better. I nowhere said men were better, but was reacting to the opposite claim.

Double-post.

You are a bit naive, here today. There are plenty of "spies and covert deals" already in this "man's world". You have no idea, apparently. They exist in the Vatican as well as in Russia, The United States, London (how about that poor man who just died who criticized Putin? What about the President of the Ukraine (somewhat in opposition to Russia) who was also poisoned a few years ago and almost died before he was elected? Don't you follow the news? Or are you too wrapped up in the "Vatican news" to pay attention to what goes on with the human beings around the Planet?

The news is replete with "revelations" that come out of "covert deals", the huge percentage of them concocted by males. This is not to say (as I said in the earlier post) that females would not be vulnerable to the same mischief. My only contention is that the majority would be less likely to go to War because of the safety of their their children. But someone else gave the example of some Palestinian women.

Perhaps it is true, that when a People's back is to the wall, and homes are being bulldozed before thir eyes, and refugee camps are being machine gunned with women and children inside, women can act with as much desperation as any man.

I am fully aware, my father did code work for the NSA back in the day. (But yes I am too wrapped up in the Church to care much about politics, besides my own vote.) I think you (collective) are naive in assuming that the world will be *so much* better if it were run by women.

HereToday, I think you are perhaps correct that the world may not be "so much" better if run by women, although I don't think we'll know the answer to that one anytime soon, or at all! Making the world better is pretty complicated stuff for just one variable to carry the day. Women in groups and organizations have their own set of issues, some the same and some different from men in groups. What research suggests is that better decisions are generally made through heterogeneous or heterosocial decison-making processes than through those that are homogeneous or homosocial. Inclusiveness is considered one of the process goals of effective decision-making. I go for both being involved, oh, about equally.

As absurd as the original assertion was, so it only spawns ridiculous statements by women to promote the absurdity. Men/women, it makes no difference. How blatantly sexist (or ignorant) for anyone to suggest otherwise.

One place that might yield the evidence you seek is the classroom. Not too long ago a book was published called something like "The Feminization of the American Male." The thesis was that the American school system, one of the few arenas where women hold sway, was making boys "sissified": less likely to fight or engage in rough behavior. To enlarge the model might be to suggest that women's power would have a tranquilizing effect on the more violent elements in our society.

I find no evidence throughout history to support your unusual deference to female leaders. There have been female leaders: Golda Meir, Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher to name a few who engaged in wars. Islamic women support suicide bombing even undertaken by their own children. People are people -- occasional catfights? There are many saintly and pacifistic men, men of great empathy. My suggestion is read history -- you'll get a different view of women leadership.

Yes, I was a history major and I am quite aware of the female leaders who have declared war throughout history. Still, they were all living in a male-dominated world and adapted to, and were in many ways co-opted by, the male power structure. I still believe that if women could rebuild society IN THEIR IMAGE, which is without a doubt more empathetic than mens', it would indeed be a different world with no wars. No, it would not be perfect as we are all human and we are all flawed... but killing other peoples' children wouldn't be something taken lightly.

It is purported that 'security moms' reelected Pres. Bush.

I thought that preprogrammed electronic voting machines manufactured by one of Bush's cronies reelected President Bush!

Pat, you in no way participated in reality in suggesting women could run the world better, why would I expect you could leap into the reality of election results -- without relying on some excuse as to how Bush won. Please, have comfort in your delusions, by all means.

Yes, his name was Diebold. people thought they had him "beat" when they demanded paper ballots. But guess who manufacutred the "optical scanners" (easily broken into with Excel so the totals could be changed)? You got it! Diebold! He had promised Bush, earlier in the year, that he would "make sure" Ohio "was won for Bush.

And, in our State of Colorado in 2004? I don't know if it was the 2 of 3 Bishops who INSISTED (against the opublic orders of Ratzinger, by the way) that their "sheep" MUST vote for BUSH against KERRY that caused this out come or the machines or both--because we had in most places paper ballots and Diebold optical scanners, but get THIS result:

In 2004 we voters in Colorado elected our FIRST Democratic State legislature in FORTY YEARS and a Democratic Senator for Congress in a closely-contested race. YET, the vote was OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of BUSH, despite the fact that the exit polls said it was for Kerry.

When we go into other Countries in the Developing World to check the validity of their elctions (to be sure they are not crooked) how is that done? BY EXIT POLLING. All over the U.S., the "exit polls of 2004 said Kerry. But the Diebold Machines said something different.

Until these machines have a valid aper trail, our democracy is TOAST, Brothers and Sisters. Thank God people cared enough in this election to get our and VOTE in numbers large enough to overcome the FRAUD. We need to start NOW.

In Denver this year even, voters waited for hours and hours just to vote. Fortunately, this did not happen in my hopme town, because the clerk and her helpers worked around the clock for days on end to prevent that outcome. But it would have, if they hadn't. The outcome of the Electoral Commision report yesterday was that machines without paper trails are not viable and need to be thrown out. We need to go back to having an honest Democracy with honest voting. This is not easy. It demands tough, hard work and accountability.

What a sore loser. Shootingstar, you lack any credibility whatsoever. Do you make up the false reality of all your arguments? You always seem to have just the perfect insightful conversation you just had. I can cite votes in the Philadelphia area that were 100% plus levels of eligible voters for the past 2 presidential elections. At believable turnout levels in low income areas, Bush wins Pennsylvania both times. We all know exit polls aren't scientific -- pollsters choose who they talk to and do so in heavy traffic Democrat urban areas. Pollsters already do so many tricks in polls that they are meant to create a reality, not reveal one. As the election approach, I don't think we saw proof of 'overcoming fraud', rather ensuring that it was Democrat fraud -- what was uncovered. Real means to eliminate fraud -- valid voter IDs -- are opposed by Democrats. They don't want accountability that will undermine their methods they've always relied upon.

"Sore loser"? This year, we WON! We are tired of the fraud and mindless LIES and poor foreign policy evidenced by this Administration. I am one poor resident of Colorado who reads the papers and tries to keep up with the news, Spiritfed. Why are you calling me names? The credibility is for all to see. It is the RECORD of the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration, and for now, the People have spoken. I am sorry your fury has to be directed towards me and others.

I know nothing about Pennsylvania. I don't live there and don't follow their politics, other than what Chris Mathews says about his brother. I hope by the next election, all our machines will have paper trails so that BOTH PARTIES will be accountable (the point of my previous post) and our Election Processes will be efficient and honest (the point of my post.) As I said, it is odd that voters in Colorado would elect the first DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE IN FORTY YEARS AND A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR and then OVERWHELMINGLY VOTE FOR a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT in 2004. If he (or his representatives) are found to have cheated in the Election of 2004, it is an impeachable offense (and countless stores of information and complaints from citizens all over the Country have been gathered by Rep. Conyers of Michigan).

However, the impeachment probably will not go forward, not because the evidence in Ohio, Colorado, Florida and other places is not there, but because the Country is in such a quaqmire that Democrats do not wish to tie up and distract the business of the Country as the Republicans did with Clinton. And Cheney is no realistic alternative. He also has committed impeachable offenses, but by the time all this could be investigated and tried, the term would be over. The Administration knows this well.

Another grounds for Impeachment (an example , only one of many, in foreign policy, is the Maliki debacle last week) is sheer INCOMPETENCE. People are beginning to wonder seriously about George Bush's strange behavior in this regard. It affects hundreads of thousands of lives (I was careful not to exaggerate--I am serious) that this President has no taste for negotiating--the fact is, he does not KNOW HOW--with foreign leaders. He knows how to negotiate with Americans and those who speak English, but he has no experience whatever with others, and no taste to learn. He has a few stock phrases he uses and is a gracious host on his own soil, but hard or subtle negotiation (think what he did with Putin and how he tried to rub the back of the German chancellor and how he left the Mideast Peace process on hold because he simply COULDN'T, so he said he WOULDN'T.)

The Hadley memo was leaked, which insulted Maliki. Then Bush met with him and completely capitulated. "He is the right guy." He's probably the wrong guy, but nonetheless, it reminds one of what he did with Putin. I wish the "old" Spiritfed was back, because maybe instead of insulting me, you could explain this puzzling behavior. Or at least comment on it without criticizing ME for my observations.

Back to Colorado, 2004. This is not voter behavior. It is unknown that people would vote a Democratic ticket and then change their vote for President?. It is "suspicious". And it contradicts what most of the voters "said" that they did. Many voters were very upset, and often the machines, during that election, (all over the Country) changed their vote to something else (usually Republican) before their eyes. This is well known. This is not "soreloserdom". This has all been documented.

You can discuss all you want. I am quite familar with the long years of Republican denial since I grew up in a Republican Family. One of the kids I grew up with was named Terry Holt. This present Republican spokesperson Terry Holt on TV may (or may not) be some relative, a son or nephew. I say this only to describe how "Republican" my environment was. (My Dad could not believe Nixon was guilty of Watergate until he resigned, but they were friends and neighbors of the young Deans, and very much liked them, so he had to very reluctantly believe what John said at the end.) But he was crushed.

We know people make mistakes. They are human. They go "off track". Even "very important people". I met Nixon once. So what? He seemed like a delightful man to shake hands with. Pleasant, smiling, personable, chatting with little old ME. Seemingly intersted in my little teenaged LIFE, and the thing we were doing for the group he was a part of (he was Vice President then.) I'm certain George Bush would/could be the same exact way. My point is this: "Charm" has nothing to do with how people will be when they are faced with overwhelming decisions which affect the lives of thousands of living, breathing, thinking people with families and children. Their jobs, their health, their very lives and welfare. Your idols may have feet of clay, Spiritfed. Everyone can.

Credibility? I would very much worry about the credibility of our Nation's leaders rather than mine. And if you are as devoted a Catholic as you say you are, I would worry about the credibility of those who purport to lead your Church, rather than attack a mere nobody, a voice crying in the mere wilderness. Why do my words so threaten you, that you would feel the need to attack me?

Shootingstar, sorry, you are also a sore winner. I see no threat from such as those like you. I just find your statements rather loopy, finding phantoms everywhere and now the Church. Whether elected government officials or Church leaders, if you disagreement with them either what selected them is suspect or they are. You have to beat other views into some instability. Listening to liberals like yourself and Chittister I have come to one conclusion, however. In situations like Darfur there's one US response -- stay out of it. It's not our responsibility that others die even in mass devastation. If, such as in Iraq where there was a national interest, there are those that will do all they can to undermine national efforts, no way I would support anything so unclear as intervening in Darfur. Those deaths, tragic though they be, can not argue efforts on our behalf -- and liberals who state otherwise here are horrible hypocrites.

In situations like Darfur there's one US response -- stay out of it. It's not our responsibility that others die even in mass devastation.

Ouch.

Cool Catholic blogs:
American Papist
The Cafeteria is Closed
Shrine of the Holy Whapping

Thanks for the lovely compliment, Spiritfed. I never expected to be included with the wise and wonderful Joan Chittister in any way, but I am honored.

If you wish to ignore dishonesty in government and our election process, go right ahead, and call us "loopy" and other names while we all work hard to get it fixed. And work we do, some of us actually down at the Elections office, others of us by writing or calling Congress and our State Elections Comissions and our local State representatives. These are things we can do to inform ourselves and get these corrupt systems changed, so that never again will our Country sink to the level of corruption in which it presently finds itself. Has it happened before and have both Parties historically been involved at times? No one is disputing that.

"Projection" is a defense mechanism in which when you point your finger (try it point your finger now--yes) you will see that three of your fingers are pointing back at you, Spiritfed. It is similar to the "mote in your neighbor's eye and the beam in your own" saying in the Gospels, but it is a very real psychological reality in life.

As to Darfur, it is a very, very sad situation. So was Viet Nam and so was Iraq when we were drawn there. In Iraq, because the food for oil program was being diverted by Saddam, children were dying of starvation and lack of appropriate medication, and Saddam was blaming us. Thousands and thousands of children died. The situation was very compelling for us to intervene. In Vietnam the same thing happened. Innocent villages were being attacked by the Viet Cong and the papers were full of people being tortured and village heads and entire families being hung or shot in front of others. Still, our "solution" turned out to be so much worse for the people of Viet Nam as a whole. Again, a compelling human situation. The French were overrun at Dien Bien Phu after they held it for a long time. Revisionist history always looks at things differently, but these were very compelling human needs and tragedies. They beckoned us to quagmires we could not win, although our original intenions were good, and our desires appeared "humanistic" (or at least that was the way our interventions were "sold"). And most involved went with the best of intentions.

Darfur is another holocaust. So is the Congo, although it is more hidden. All of this information is available to anyone who reads the paper and a couple of newsmagazines and watches CNN fairly regularly.

What we have not yet successfully developed is a model of "limited intervention". We have tried mightily (we tried in Iraq unsuccessfully.) Initially we tried in Viet Nam with the "advisor" model from 1960-1964. Nothing has worked to date. How to protect and defend the people of Darfur?

In Lebanon we see the ineptitude of the U.N. model to date, although so far the model of Bosnia and the rest of Yugoslavia appears to have worked the best of anything to date, but that also appeared to require a lot of bombing and destruction of lives and infrastructure. After all the genocidal atrocities visited upon the people (mostly Muslims) but also other groups, not too many people seemed to complain as much about that intervention.

Since you brought up Darfur, Spiritfed, let's discuss it reasonably (kind of a paradox, because it's an emotional subject.)

Does anybody have any thoughts on how the People of Darfur can be protected and cared for? Or concerns about anything else I've said? How can we stand back and let genocide occur? And yet when we get "involved", another Viet Nam or Iraq can happen. How do we avoid this? Your point is well taken, but I don't think "doing nothing" is the solution either. The Arabs are actively tring to push these innocent Black people out of Sudan and Chad.. What can be done?

Shootingstar, dishonesty is government go hand-in-hand. I do not use a universal to support a specific; it is illogical. I do wonder, however, if you are not Catholic as you suggested, what right you believe you have to suggest what it should be?

You ask what should be done about Darfur -- you carve in granite your hypocracy. It is a civil war that involves no one outside. How arrogant for you to presume you have the right to interfere. What absolute imperialism. What a violation of sovereignty. Any who would not agree should never have complained about Iraq in any regard. No justification remains.

I AM a Catholic. An Anglican is a Catholic, despite what you want to think. Just not under Rome. And why did I leave Rome? It was a matter of conscience. I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but "Rome" has left us. (Of course it's not the first time, I realize that.) By supporting those who covered up the sexual predators, and by refusing to compensate victims (or their families--of those who lost children to suicide caused by the perps' actions) the Vatican has created a scandal of such magnitude it is a wonder if it cqan ever be healed.

By refusing to fully include gays at Mass, when the hypocritcal truth is a considerable number of priests SAYING MASS are gay and closeted, as are bishops and possibily popes and saints (google for that information). See "Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit" by Gary Wills, Image Trade Paperback Edition, Doubleday, 2000, p.195. Or better yet, look up the stats on google for later quotes from Bishops and others concerned that gay priests are being unfairly "targeted" by Rome with the "pedophile" brush.

There are so many issues that are WRONG...and the illusions of "infallibility" for one, has created impossible dilemmas for families since the manipulations of the Humanae Vitae scandal. The Church lost so much credibility over that one. And now, to see it reinforced once again is so utterly uncaring. I suggest you read about those mechanations in Wills' book before you dare write on the subject or accuse me of any heresy or wrongdoing.

Yet I still love the Church and all the good She is capable of doing. There are so many very good-hearted people working for good in the world who represent the Church, there is no question about it, so I have very mixed feelings and still feel I must speak out about the wrongs which caused me to leave. Does that make me a hypocrite, Spiritfed. You may call me that if you wish. You call me lots of names, anyway, all the time. It is what you do to people. I will leave it up to God to judge your actions. "What people have done they will do." I doubt if you will change anytime soon, so I will just have to accept you as you are. But I don't accept the pain the Church is causing to my fellow men and women, and I pray that eventually she will change.

I concur with Here Today. Anglican is not Catholic and you cannot be both not Catholic and Catholic at the same time. Gays are in communion with the Church if they are not practicing homosexuality. The Church does not exclude gays.

Your comments regarding infallibility and Humanae Vitae scandal (?) also are clear rejections of the authority of the Church. I think, according to Christ's instituting the Church, it is you who are wrong about these issues -- not the Church and its teachings. Again I ask the question, if I were gay and acting upon it I would believe myself in the state of sin. When I otherwise commit sin, I know I am to change. Why is it that so many seek to justify homosexual practice and exclude it from sin? Can I also not then redefine my sin as not sin -- and everything is okay? I ask for the basis and authority for this.

The church's teaching is that all baptized Christians are members of the Catholic Church, but without the fullness of the Church. It is on this basis that the Church claims to be the church Jesus founded, rather than a significant part of it. It is also the reason the church does not rebaptize protestant converts. The belief is they have always been by virtue of their baptism members of the Catholic church. See the RCIA ritual for details.

Yes, in a broad sense, all those baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Catholic (which may raise some question about the validity of baptism in certain branches of the Episcopalian Church). However, if only for the sake of clarity, those who claim a different belief should acknowledge that they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. (btw the Eastern Rite Catholics are in union with the Catholic Church without being part of the "Roman Catholic Church", that is the Latin Rite). It is disingenuous to claim, as shootingstar did, to be both Catholic and Anglican. It is not as big a contradiction as spiritfed would have us believe, but it implies an equivocation that only harms real ecumenical discussion.

Fran, the Church does not teach that all baptized Christians are Catholics. The RCIA process of recognizing a previous baptism upon becoming Catholic doesn't make the reverse true. The individual becomes Catholic only upon requesting admission into the Church. And those candidates receive the charism of Confirmation that confirm upon the individual the sacramental graces.

No. You're wrong. The church claims all baptized Christians. I would agree with you that the church is only a part, albeit a significant part, of the church Jesus founded. But Rome disagrees. She claims all baptized Christians, although she says those not under Rome do not possess the fullness of the church.

Sorry shootingstar, but the Anglican church is not in communion with the Catholic Church, and they are the ones that left. (see: wiki)

Likewise the Church teaching on homoseuxality is nothing new, and those who dissent from it have left it, not the other way around. Thankfully the Sacraments do not depend on the holiness of the priest, so the Church survives imperfect, even hypocritical, priests. Again, Humanae Vitae has its basis in Scripture and Tradition (as well as the uncertainty over when a soul is infused). To deny the moral truth is uncaring, to be an enabler to sin is scandal (properly speaking).

I do admire your courage and ability to follow your words with your actions.

+God bless you and keep you and make His face shine upon you and give you Peace.

Thank you for your kind prayer, here today. Check out Wills' book from the library if you have a chance and read the section on Humanae Vitae. He is still a catholic in very good standing, and his information is very well researched. Everything he has written is very true in my own experience, but it involves the experience of members of the Pope's own devoted Commissions of very devout Catholics who were called to Rome for the express purpose of consulting with him. When they explained very articulately how the "rhythm system" toyed with their otherwise happy marriages abd deprived them of serenity and made them"obsessed with sex all the time" and almost all of them voted FOR birth control, the Pope then loaded the Commission with Bishops, but the laypeople were able to convince the Bishope, which it turned out, was not very difficult. it was only Cardinal Ottaviani and another person, a mr. Ford, who were adamantly opposed, and wrote their own minority report. The future John Paul II would not attend the sessions, but sent word he was opposed (he never heard what the lay commision had to say.) I have told you most of what Wills had to say, but it is always best to read the source yourself, because I have probably left out details of voting, etc. When Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae he was astounded that almost all the people (and many Bishops in Dioceses in Europe, etc.) refused to fully promugate the message, left loopholes, etc.

Greeley says it was the beginning of the end of respect for Papal Authoity in the Church in the United States.

For us, as a married couple it was the beginning of the end, too. We had made many sacrifices while we waited for the Pope's decision, trusting in the Holy Spirit and in Papal Infallibility. We believed in it and we knew he had consulted with this lay commission. We knew they would not let us down, and they didn't. But the Pope did. We knew then (from our own lived experience) that "papal infallibility" was not true. We were rocked to our foundations. My husband lost his Faith. I struggled to keep mine. He began to act strangely. Our marriage deteriorated from that point on, although it had not been easy before, but now with little Faith to hold things together, it REALLY went downhill.

I wonder how many other families this happened to...

Why is anything Greeley says important? Is the Pope to follow God or Greeley? Is the standard not to be doing the right thing and being true to what the mission of the Church is?

**FR** Greeley is right, the "truce of 1968" is what has made the industry of dissent possible, following the weak response to the rebellion on Humanae Vitae. (George Wiegel points this out as well, one of few (if there are any other) points of agreement between him and Fr Greeley).

He is a professional listener who is actively seeking out the evolving nature of the church. The Spirit does speak uniquely through each of us, or you would not feel compelled to contribute here. If this is not the case we may have to send the Captain of the Starship Voyager, of the United Federation of Planets, on a mission to rescue you and your poor compatriots from the grip of the BORG.

We Must Not Confuse What Is Essential In The Church With That Which Is Mutable, No Matter How Ancient It May Be

A serious adult cannot argue with you, Spiritfed. It is reminiscent of high school. I refuse to lower myself to your level anymore.

You're learning, Star, you're learning.

shootingstar, I have never reduced myself to your level. I take it you have no defense for Greeley, a very aberrant Catholic.

I don't know what you mean by "aberrant". Fr. Greeley is in good standing with the Catholic Church.

Again, an unqualified slur on the integrity of a respected church professional. Can I get a discussion devoid of dispeptic condescension going ? No ! I have made repeated references to Greeley's writings and as he himself has discovered, the most virulent critics have never even read his work.

We Must Not Confuse What Is Essential In The Church With That Which Is Mutable, No Matter How Ancient It May Be