Media misinterprets pope.... again

[JWL]

I'm sure some of you have seen the media's version of the supposed remarks from Pope Benedict XVI that non-Catholics aren't saved, or some nonsense like that. Personally I'm getting pretty darn tired of what I think is the media's intentional misinterpretation of just about everything the Vatican and/or the Pope does or says.

First of all, these weren't just some random remarks from the Pope. They were an explanation from the Vatican's 'department' of church doctrine about Vatican II. Now those of you who have read the media's version of the story probably don't know what Vatican II is, since the media didn't bother to mention that little bit of information, which is kind of important since that's what the entire explanatory document is about:

Vatican explains Vatican II

"Vatican II" is the name given to a discussion between the Catholic clergy which took place in the 1960s. This discussion was all about making the Catholic Mass more accessible and more understandable, since at that point in time, all of the prayers were in Latin. The result of Vatican II was the development a new version of the Mass, now called the "Mass of Pope Paul VI", which sought to involve the people more in the Mass. And that's about it.

While Vatican II did little more than tweak the Mass, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about exactly what it did. Some of this is honest misunderstanding and some of it is less than honest - I'll just leave it at that. It's really an internal Catholic matter, and it annoys me that the media thinks that it's somehow fine to discuss the inner workings of my church... and on top of that, they get it all wrong.

The words which the media took and ran with from this new document are those which state that non-Catholic churches are not really churches. This makes perfect sense if you know what Catholics mean when they say "Church". There is no need to say any more than that if you're talking to a Catholic, and since this document is intended for Catholics, there shouldn't be need for any further explanation. But since the media is involved, it now becomes necessary.

Protestants are right to be upset when they read this document saying that their churches aren't churches. That is highly insulting. However, it takes a different meaning when you realize that when one Catholic is talking to another (as in this document) and he says "Church" he is talking about the Catholic Church. If "Church" means Catholic Church, then obviously a Protestant Church is not a "Church" in that sense.

If you read the entire document instead of misinterpretations of bits and pieces of it, you'll see that it is by no means condemning non-Catholic Christians. It is simply repeating what has been Catholic teaching for 2,000 years - that the Catholic Church is the one religion which is completely correct, and that other religions have varying percentages of correctness to them. If this basic statement of faith in Catholicism is offensive and should be downplayed, then just about all ecumenical, interfaith dialogue is a fraud.

But I don't think that that statement is offensive. If a Protestant told me that he believes that his religion is 100% correct and that mine has a certain percentage of correctness, why would I be offended? Obviously we can't both be 100% correct if we believe different things.

I do think that the media's intentional misreporting of this document is offensive, however, which is why I bothered to post all of this here.

[GhaleonOne]

While some might pass through this post (and honestly, if you're not a Christian or any kind, it's kinda pointless anyways), I'm glad I stumbled into it. I saw the story on the Pope's remarks yesterday and on the first read, felt it was a slap in the face. Then the more I thought about it, I kinda had an idea that something didn't stack up. I figured the biggest problem was probably language. Likely, what the Pope said was not in English, and that's probably where some of the misconception comes from to begin with.

In fact, it seems to me that all the Pope was saying was that Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) are not the same as Roman Catholicism. True statement. The problem comes in the useage of the word "church" in most of the articles I read. In fact, "church" should probably read "Church", as it's not referring to a physical church building of sorts, but a specific thing, in this case, the Roman Catholic Church. His remarks don't seem any different than if I were to say "the Catholic Church isn't a Protestant Church". At least, that's what I understood after looking into it more. It wasn't meant as an insult to non-Catholics, but just a statement of fact.

But I don't think that that statement is offensive. If a Protestant told me that he believes that his religion is 100% correct and that mine has a certain percentage of correctness, why would I be offended? Obviously we can't both be 100% correct if we believe different things.

This makes quite a bit of sense, though in my own view, even as a Protestant, I don't think any Protestant denomination has it 100% correct. Not that I believe Catholics or Orthodox do either, but I think all three, at least if you really dig in, for the most part, have the same core important points. I have no problems with some of the smaller disagreements. In some ways, the smaller disagreements over minor theological stuff leads to good discussion and analyzing of beliefs.

I didn't word that the greatest, but I hope it still made sense.

[Jenner]

hmm, y'know, some people don't hate catholics because of what the media says, but rather, because of how most catholics behave. That whole pretentious holier then thou hypocrisy. But then, all religions have there bad apples. Still, the persistent support of an all-white, all-male, reclusive elitist infrastructure you really have no say in the works of is definitely gaining you no points in a society that acknowledges the existence of democratic choice, women and minorities.

but then, I'm talking out of my arse now too.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

A few points:

1) The thing about it is that the media has no intent of portraying ANY religion in any light other than negative or controversial. And it's not some secular destructo-mission, it's money. People want to hear about strife and conflict and anger. They want to stir up controversy, because then you tune in again the next night and the night after that. The mission of free non- government subsidized media (As in the U.S.A.) is ratings and profits, because their obligation is to their shareholders.

2) I don't think any Christian sect (Catholics included) should be so bold as to make the claim that their worship and following of God is 100% true. To say that your teachings are just as Christ handed them to his Apostles is a rather great claim, and one that I personally don't think any sect can live up to. The only ones that could even begin to make that claim are some of the early Church Fathers and the pre-Schism True Catholic Church.

3) The numbers of Catholics (Especially non-American Catholics) that hate Protestants (Or at least think they are bound for hell), and the equally ridiculous number of Protestants that hate Catholics (And, in the same way think they are bound for hell) is a testament to how members of each of their respective denominations need to be careful with what they say. For the Vatican to say that non-Catholic churches are not actually "Churches" is going to get people who don't care about the facts all riled up, especially people on the fringes of both Protestantism and Catholicism. Now I totally understand what the Vatican and the Pope mean by that, but people who already have an axe to grind are just go to be further fueled by words that they Vatican could have avoided.

It's like if the Baptist Church Leadership across the country started saying that Catholics idolize Mary. They are not saying Catholics are committing Idolatry.....but they are saying something that is certainly going to anger lots of Catholics, especially if it comes from the Church leaders.

[JWL]

While some might pass through this post (and honestly, if you're not a Christian or any kind, it's kinda pointless anyways), I'm glad I stumbled into it. I saw the story on the Pope's remarks yesterday and on the first read, felt it was a slap in the face. Then the more I thought about it, I kinda had an idea that something didn't stack up. I figured the biggest problem was probably language. Likely, what the Pope said was not in English, and that's probably where some of the misconception comes from to begin with.

It wasn't even a quote from the Pope himself, though the Pope did approve of the document. The media got so many things wrong, and of course concentrated on the most "controversial" quote in the entire thing and twisted it to make it sound really bad.

In fact, it seems to me that all the Pope was saying was that Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) are not the same as Roman Catholicism. True statement. The problem comes in the useage of the word "church" in most of the articles I read. In fact, "church" should probably read "Church", as it's not referring to a physical church building of sorts, but a specific thing, in this case, the Roman Catholic Church. His remarks don't seem any different than if I were to say "the Catholic Church isn't a Protestant Church". At least, that's what I understood after looking into it more. It wasn't meant as an insult to non-Catholics, but just a statement of fact.

You have it pretty much dead-on right there. Pope Benedict XVI is very matter-of-fact, and is thus often interpreted as tactless.

This makes quite a bit of sense, though in my own view, even as a Protestant, I don't think any Protestant denomination has it 100% correct. Not that I believe Catholics or Orthodox do either, but I think all three, at least if you really dig in, for the most part, have the same core important points. I have no problems with some of the smaller disagreements. In some ways, the smaller disagreements over minor theological stuff leads to good discussion and analyzing of beliefs.

I didn't word that the greatest, but I hope it still made sense.

You worded it just fine, and I see where you've coming from. For the most part, Catholics and Protestants do agree on some of the most important aspects of Christianity. Also, while we shouldn't necessarily focus on our differences, we have to acknowledge them. For example, I think it would be an insult to your intelligence for me to pretend that I don't ask the Virgin Mary to pray for me while I'm trying to have an ecumenical discussion with you.

hmm, y'know, some people don't hate catholics because of what the media says, but rather, because of how most catholics behave. That whole pretentious holier then thou hypocrisy.

That's a fair and legitimate point. However, if Catholics are going to be hated, it should be for real reasons instead of fraudulent ones invented by the media. That's all I ask.

But then, all religions have there bad apples. Still, the persistent support of an all-white, all-male, reclusive elitist infrastructure you really have no say in the works of is definitely gaining you no points in a society that acknowledges the existence of democratic choice, women and minorities.

The bishops are not exactly all white, nor is truth ever determined by a democratic vote, but you are right to say that non-religious people who are democracy-minded could surely have a difficult time understanding the concept of an organization which believes it protects and promotes unchangeable truth. For example, it's probably correct though regretable to say that most Catholics reject Catholic teaching on chastity. Yet even if 99% of Catholic lay people opposed what the Church teaches on chastity, the truth is still the truth.

1) The thing about it is that the media has no intent of portraying ANY religion in any light other than negative or controversial. And it's not some secular destructo-mission, it's money. People want to hear about strife and conflict and anger. They want to stir up controversy, because then you tune in again the next night and the night after that. The mission of free non- government subsidized media (As in the U.S.A.) is ratings and profits, because their obligation is to their shareholders.

Well, except that my local newspaper actually managed to report this story correctly. I was very surprised and happy to see that they did not misconstrue the Vatican document, but rather gave an accurate portrayal of it.

2) I don't think any Christian sect (Catholics included) should be so bold as to make the claim that their worship and following of God is 100% true. To say that your teachings are just as Christ handed them to his Apostles is a rather great claim, and one that I personally don't think any sect can live up to. The only ones that could even begin to make that claim are some of the early Church Fathers and the pre-Schism True Catholic Church.

I guess that's a legitimate enough point, though I'm not sure what the Orthodox schism has to do with it. The first major split from the Catholic Church 1000 years ago shouldn't have much to do with the Church being 100% correct in its dogma, nor should the Reformation of 500 years ago. If what the Church teaches is truth, then it's truth. If it's not truth, then it's not truth. That's about all there is to it.

3) The numbers of Catholics (Especially non-American Catholics) that hate Protestants (Or at least think they are bound for hell),

Let me stop you right there so that I can point out that any Catholic who hates Protestants or thinks that they are condemned to hell is expressing an anti-Catholic point of view, and the nearest devout Catholic should immediately correct them for saying such blasphemous things.

and the equally ridiculous number of Protestants that hate Catholics (And, in the same way think they are bound for hell) is a testament to how members of each of their respective denominations need to be careful with what they say. For the Vatican to say that non-Catholic churches are not actually "Churches" is going to get people who don't care about the facts all riled up, especially people on the fringes of both Protestantism and Catholicism. Now I totally understand what the Vatican and the Pope mean by that, but people who already have an axe to grind are just go to be further fueled by words that they Vatican could have avoided.

Yet none of this would have happened if the media - whatever their motive, I don't care - hadn't taken an internal Catholic document, took out one tiny part of it, and twisted it to cause controversy.

Earlier today I heard an ad for the local TV news. They promised to tell us about the "Pope's bold statement" "at 11". First, it wasn't the Pope who said it, it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the Vatican. Second it wasn't a "bold" statement, it was Catholic dogma which has been the same for 2000 years. Third it wasn't even a "statement", it was a written document. So with three words they're wrong three times. Again, I don't really care what their intention is; all I know is that I don't have much hope for the actual news segment when the teaser is filled with errors.

It's like if the Baptist Church Leadership across the country started saying that Catholics idolize Mary. They are not saying Catholics are committing Idolatry.....but they are saying something that is certainly going to anger lots of Catholics, especially if it comes from the Church leaders.

Except that in that case, the intent of their words would be to annoy Catholics as they would be directed at Catholics. The Vatican document was intended as an internal Catholic document to help Catholics understand Vatican II. It was never intended to insult Protestants. Not only that, but it was not even a new document; it was a summary of a document which was originally written in 2000, while John Paul II was Pope. Thus the criticisms of Pope Benedict XVI over this document really make no sense at all.

Here's a closer example. The Baptist Church Leadership finds out that a number of the faithful have a misunderstanding of a point of theology. To combat that, they release a document intended for Baptists to help them out. Deep inside the document somewhere, it's mentioned that Catholics idolize Mary. Then the media shows up, takes that quote, and changes its meaning to say that according to the leaders of the Baptist Church, Catholics worship Mary. Then the media proceeds to blast that story across the globe.

[CatsWithMatches]

I guess it's all about presentation.

This:

and the nearest devout Catholic should immediately correct them for saying such blasphemous things.

taken out of context, could give a non-catholic the idea that the church discourages people from forming their own points of view and opinions.

The whole misinterpretation issue is even worse when it starts to affect people's beliefs/prejudices. For example, as a corollary to yours, there ARE baptists out there who actually do believe that catholics worship Mary. (I used to date one many years ago).

I think the error is on both sides. Yes, the media certainly spins things out of proportion (they would say that it's their job). Benedict, as far as I've seen, doesn't pay too much attention to how the world perceives/interprets what he says. This isn't a knock against him, just an observation, but that is the definition of tactless.

[Jenner]

I guess it's all about presentation.

This:

and the nearest devout Catholic should immediately correct them for saying such blasphemous things.

taken out of context, could give a non-catholic the idea that the church discourages people from forming their own points of view and opinions.

We filthy ex-catholic heathens acknowledge this statement as at least semi-factual. I have been told by other still-practicing Catholics that there are just some churches that just plain send the wrong message and that it's the same for all religions but my experience as a Catholic growing up in a Catholic church in a Catholic community was very negative. Free thought, critical thinking, and independent pursuits were very highly discouraged and frowned upon (even punished!) I left the religion with the impression that Catholics were the closest thing to a hive mind as a Faith can get without losing credibility as a major religion.* I have yet to run across a Catholic who did not reinforce this negative stereotype. Which is unfortunate for both Catholics and me, because I'm sure there are decent Catholics out there and these arsehats are ruining it for them and encouraging people like me to form these biased suspicions of their Faith. Granted I doubt the Catholic community gives half a darn about the impression some pathetic white-trash girl has of them even if it's based on there own deity-forsaken words and actions.

Granted to the Religion-scorners all faiths have the "Don't question, TRUST!" stigma on them

*Prime examples of this hive mind label in regards to minor religions would be Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Amish who also have all been accused of "brainwashing" there members and keeping them in groups of fully brainwashed members to protect them from free-thought. Thus encouraging them to take their questions directly to the "Hive Queen/King"rather then thinking critically for themselves. These speculations may or may not be true on a case-by-case basis.

but again, the butt speaks.

[JWL]

I guess it's all about presentation.

This:

and the nearest devout Catholic should immediately correct them for saying such blasphemous things.

taken out of context, could give a non-catholic the idea that the church discourages people from forming their own points of view and opinions.

I'm glad it can be read in that context, because that's exactly what I meant by it. The Catholic Church can, should, and does discourage Catholics from forming their own points of view and opinions when it comes to unchangeable Catholic dogma.

Let's say I disagree with the Catholic dogma on, I dunno, something basic and absolutely vital like the Resurrection. Now, if I call myself Catholic, I can either accept that I am in the wrong and change my view, struggle with my difference until I accept though not fully understand the Church's view, or the third option is to stop being a Catholic. There is no fourth option of "Well maybe I'll complain to my priest and write angry letters, hoping that the dogma of the Resurrection is undone." No. As I said, truth is not determined by a democratic vote, nor is it determined by angry letters to the editor or phone calls to your representative.

To get back on point here, if a Catholic speaking as a Catholic says that Protestants go to Hell just because they're Protestants, then he is WRONG. Period. There is no debate to be had over that issue. When you're arguing from a Catholic point of view, you go to the official teaching of the Church to find your answer. You do not say "Well I'm a Catholic and I think Protestants are icky" or whatever. That is preposterous.

The whole misinterpretation issue is even worse when it starts to affect people's beliefs/prejudices. For example, as a corollary to yours, there ARE baptists out there who actually do believe that catholics worship Mary. (I used to date one many years ago).

Of course! Many Protestants (and probably some Catholics) think that Catholics worship Mary. This is partially a misunderstanding and partially based on the idea that any prayer directed toward anyone but God is wrong. Most Protestants who understand that we don't actually worship Mary object to our prayers to her because they believe that she can't hear our prayers and that all prayer should always go directly to God.

I think the error is on both sides. Yes, the media certainly spins things out of proportion (they would say that it's their job). Benedict, as far as I've seen, doesn't pay too much attention to how the world perceives/interprets what he says. This isn't a knock against him, just an observation, but that is the definition of tactless.

I won't quibble over your overall point, but in this case, it was not Pope Benedict XVI's doing. The original document was published in 2000 while Pope John Paul II was in charge. Neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict XVI actually wrote it.

Though your point is an important one, because it leads to what I think is the reason why the media ran with this story in the first place. The story is supposed to make people think that Pope Benedict XVI is some kind of nasty tyrant who is taking the Church in a radically different direction than Pope John Paul II. Of course, as I have pointed out, that is completely false.

We filthy ex-catholic heathens acknowledge this statement as at least semi-factual. I have been told by other still-practicing Catholics that there are just some churches that just plain send the wrong message and that it's the same for all religions but my experience as a Catholic growing up in a Catholic church in a Catholic community was very negative. Free thought, critical thinking, and independent pursuits were very highly discouraged and frowned upon (even punished!)

If you're talking about theology, then your Church was right to be negative toward dissenting theological views from within. If you're talking about anything other than theology, then I think there was a problem at your Church.

Although, while dissent from the theology is not allowed, a Catholic authority should not punish theological dissent from a student, but should be prepared to defend what the Church teaches and explain why it teaches it. The student can then make his own well informed choices.

Granted to the Religion-scorners all faiths have the "Don't question, TRUST!" stigma on them

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of Catholics have a moment in their life where they have doubts in their faith. I was no exception. In the end, they come out of it either as a lapsed or ex-Catholic, or as a stronger Catholic than they ever were before. Personally, my questioning of the Church and search for answers ultimately lead to the increasing of my faith far beyond what it ever was in my youth.

[Jenner]

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of Catholics have a moment in their life where they have doubts in their faith. I was no exception. In the end, they come out of it either as a lapsed or ex-Catholic, or as a stronger Catholic than they ever were before. Personally, my questioning of the Church and search for answers ultimately lead to the increasing of my faith far beyond what it ever was in my youth.

Mmmm... I'm truly sorry. I wish you luck with that. :/

[JWL]

Mmmm... I'm truly sorry. I wish you luck with that. :/

Hey, good luck with your pointless life devoted to playing with electronic children's toys, too :/

I can only take so much, and you all know damn well what I'm talking about, so don't even think about playing dumb. Feel free to whine about how mean my reply is, because I'm done with this thread. The next time the media says something outrageous about the pope, which millions of people will use to justify their insane "opinion" that Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi when he's actually theologically identical to Pope John Paul II, perhaps I'll post again, but that time, I'll only bother to reply to people who aren't making snide, vicious, and ignorant remarks.

[Dark_Fairy]

The Media does tend to mess things up sometimes. That being the case, the Pope would never say something like: "Your going to hell because your not Catholic." He is the Pope after all, and has to have responsibility for what he says and does.

Even if the Pope did say something like that, people are still entitled to their own beliefs. It shouldn't matter if your Protestant or Catholic, Christian or non-Christian. If people are offened, then they should ignore it and just follow whatever they feel is right.

[Werefrog]

Hey, good luck with your pointless life devoted to playing with electronic children's toys, too :/

That sure is a... Christian response. Way to go with that whole turning the other cheek thing.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

JWL, you really need to relax. It does nobody any good to be outraged about a news story most will forget about in two weeks. When someone in your life makes a comment about the statements released by the Vatican, then you can, with humility and patience, inform the person of context and purpose. And if they disagree, LET THEM, it's not your place to force everyone to believe the same thing. If you can approach a problem and solve it with rational and loving actions then do so, but seldom does a statement warrant offensive outbursts.

And yes, I saw what Jenner wrote, that was a petty, arrogant and foolish remark. But when you decide to reciprocate with an attack it makes you no better.

Discussing religion on the Internet is senseless. Whether seeking, or teaching, it's the wrong medium for it. Use what you know to teach those around you that may have questions, it's obvious that you know what you're talking about.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Hey, good luck with your pointless life devoted to playing with electronic children's toys, too :/

That sure is a... Christian response. Way to go with that whole turning the other cheek thing.

This is a card i enjoy pulling as well.

either way, who cares about what the media says about catholicism anymore? the media has already accomplished getting a large amount of the public to believe that catholicism is the fast-track to pedophilia. Not to mention the massive amount of jokes that came from that. once the media makes picking on you "trendy", you pretty much don't bounce back.

[Ozone]

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of Catholics have a moment in their life where they have doubts in their faith. I was no exception. In the end, they come out of it either as a lapsed or ex-Catholic, or as a stronger Catholic than they ever were before. Personally, my questioning of the Church and search for answers ultimately lead to the increasing of my faith far beyond what it ever was in my youth.

Mmmm... I'm truly sorry. I wish you luck with that. :/

That was a thing of beauty.

Hey, good luck with your pointless life devoted to playing with electronic children's toys, too :/

That sure is a... Christian response. Way to go with that whole turning the other cheek thing.

As was that.


It is really, honestly people like you, JWL, that drove me away from organized religion to begin with.

Now, I've had moments in my life where I truly believe that something stopped me from being killed (lying in the middle of a bad road while bleeding and unconscious, and somehow managing to not get run over rings a bell). So, please, don't spring the disbeliever crap on me. Just let it go. People will believe what they want to believe, and that's the way it should be. Religion is a highly personal thing, and I think that it is wrong to try to make everyone see the ultimate being in the universe in any way but there own.

To quote a Dickinson chestnut poem:

"SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.

Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.

God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!"

[GhaleonOne]

Mmmm... I'm truly sorry. I wish you luck with that. :/

That was a thing of beauty.

Actually, I thought Jenner's comment was really harsh myself, but I know Jenner hasn't had much luck with religion in her life so far from what I've gathered, so it's understandable. But in these religious and political threads lately, there's been a lot of people with comments that were out of line, so I haven't even bothered with moderating them. And I generally trust Kizyr's judgment on these kinds of threads, otherwise I wouldn't have put him in the head admin role. I just wish these kinds of topics wouldn't get people so riled up easily. There's no reason for it. I remember when I could post an article about religion that would get a really good 2-3 page thread going that never once even got close to heated. It's been a good 3 years since those times though.

That sure is a... Christian response. Way to go with that whole turning the other cheek thing.

I actually think that's probably the most misunderstood Bible quote that gets quoted so often. I don't mean you any disrespect by that either, Werefrog. It's just, many people misunderstand the context in which it was said. But it's getting too late, and I've got a big project I'm trying to finish at work tomorrow. I don't do so well the next morning without enough sleep these days (I'm getting old... ) I'll throw down a better response on this tomorrow. I've been meaning to do it for 2 days.

[Ozone]

Don't expect it to calm down any time soon. There's really too sharp of a divide between people (and their principles) regarding ideals these days (and it's a shame). This is a main reason why I try to keep my nose out of things like this, it really gets so unpleasant so very fast.


What I meant by "a thing of beauty" is that I fell off my chair laughing and didn't recover for a good ten minutes.

[GhaleonOne]

There's really too sharp of a divide between people (and their principles) regarding ideals these days (and it's a shame).

That's a truth if I've ever heard one. I assume most people around here already know my stance on faith and religion anyways, so unless I have something useful to add, I've stayed out of most of these lately.

[phyco126]

Sorry to those who Jenner offended, but... yeah, I laughed pretty good too when I saw that.

Though, I like what Weird Al said in Amish Paradise, which is something I think the truely religious should do. I try to do that too, and I'm not even religious.

"A local boy kicked me in the butt last week
I just smiled at him and I turned the other cheek
I really don't care in fact I wish him well
Because I'll be laughing my head when he's burning in hell"

[CatsWithMatches]

I just can't figure out what JWL was going for when he posted this. I mean, we've had many great flamew.. uh, i mean discussions, on religion, and all our viewpoints are pretty well known here now.

It's not like I'm suddenly going to see the catholic church in a whole new light, being an ex-catholic myself. Given that, it seems to this article was posted specifically to incite discussion on a topic that JWL himself said wasn't up for discussion, just acceptance. All I'm saying is, bring a topic like this to the table, and we're bound to bring our own opinions and viewpoints to the table, whether the church wants us to have them or not.

Some comments here certainly were more harsh than they should have been, but I can't figure out what JWL was expecting.