At other times, people have interpreted this blog's theologically-neutral perspective to be indicative of Pentecostalism, Zoroastrianism, atheism or Shia Islam--though I don't recall ever descending into mystical advocacy. (I leave that to the robed. My own religious [non-]practice and/or mentalist emissions will not fall within the purview of this blog.)
When I make a factual statement about American Catholics' lived reality--revealed by defensible, quality public opinion research--I'm not entering into any theological debate. Conservative Catholics clearly bristle when the unblindered bring this information to their attention. I grudgingly admit to (here comes one little exception to the line-in-the-sand prophesied above) my personal inability to empathize with the conservatives on this point. (I'll never do that again, unless I feel like doing it again.)
Which brings us to Jack Robertson's comment on my blog, yesterday--accusing me of attempting to whip up dissenting Catholics into some agenda-thumping faction. This represents a funny misinterpretation of everything this blog stands for. (It's Who I Am™.) I take no position on how public--or lay--opinion ought to influence the US Roman Catholic Church. OTOH, I am aware--as is anyone--that the US Catholic church of today is very different from the one we had forty years ago. I suggest we agree that 'public opinion played a role in that tranformation'. Still on board?
Jim next proudly announces he'll always be a Catholic because it's foundation is unchanging. That is of course either a ridiculous lie or an uninteresting semantic game. Again--I'm in no way voicing any personal preference--I'm simply acknowledging an obvious aspect of reality. If you want to maintain your assertion that the Catholic Church's foundation can be depended upon never to change (in the next century, say), let's end this particular facet of our dispute simply by acknowledging that very many sensible people accept my prognostication--that at least one substantive change will happen during that period.
Additionally: Were something to never change, that doesn't seem--in and of itself--a compelling reason for admiring it. A certain amount of stasis may be pleasing, in life, but change has added great richness to this one. Even vicissitudes have occasionally birthed treasure. Less is a bore.
Jim also accuses me of abusing a commenter yesterday, claiming I was excessively viper-tongued.
I don't see how my suggested prayer could really cause any harm, Jim.
And I never delete non-spam comments. On this score, I am radically different from Eden Prairie's leading public anti-intellectuals, who only allow sycophantic comments.
Lastly, Jim asks if I want ideological opponents to read--and comment on--this blog: Yes!
Dissent is what makes this blogger prate!
**
“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.”
Oscar Wilde
