Replies

"I don't think that the author of the article has any more of an "agenda" than some here..."

It only takes a few minutes of critical reading and research of his other works to see exactly what the author’s agenda is, and it sure isn't pro-Christian.

Everyone who chooses to participate in the Religion Forum has an agenda and it is easy to see what the agenda is of those who embrace the age old principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when they climb into bed with Giulio Meotti and Hillel Fendel.

Why else would some seek out Catholic topic threads and attempt to use it, like some kind of St. Groundhog’s Day experience, to re-rationalize and re-justify their decision to leave the Church? If, as they believe Jesus is OK with it, why care about convincing those of us who have held fast about their superiority?

Why would some instantly choose to believe and defend the worst about the Church based upon the a fabricated slur by Arutz Sheva and yet spend hours every week over the course of years denying and arguing what the actual Catholic dogma, doctrine and history is with actual Catholics, both clergy and Master Catechists alike? Why do some present themselves as knowing everything there is to know about Catholicism while reciting only the lies that can be found on anti-Catholic websites?

Why would some continue to spout lies besmirching the Church and deny it is anti-Catholic? Why would some search the internet for hours looking for a single corroborating anti-Catholic snippet or example of a fallen Catholic while ignoring the preponderance of the evidence of the good done by the Church and its clergy? Why can some NEVER find anything good to say about the Church?

The decent thing would be to admit the haste and error in attacking Cardinal Ravasi, but I have not come to expect much decency in this forum. Like Marshmallow, I too have an agenda, but I am not deceptive or in denial as to what it is. I am here to defend the truth.

"...denying and arguing what the actual Catholic dogma, doctrine and history is with actual Catholics, both clergy and Master Catechists alike? "

Because the history of how some of the dogma arose, isn't exactly as is advertised? That much has been well enough proven.

Just last week one of your number tried to lead me down a primrose path (with tons of loaded questions) on the way to "Purgatory".

I didn't much care for a more than FIRST two centuries of "church" history being skipped over, covered by a tombstone, and a dream. Some of us are here for the same reasons you claim is your own.

To defend the truth. >