Balderdash!
While I agree that the church is invisible to the extent that no one knows who it’s members are by looking at them,
So which is it? Invisible or not?
Or is it just playing both sides against the middle so that no matter what someone else says, you can claim that they're wrong and that's not what you said or believe?
Also, you need to check out the RF guidelines on the RM's homepage.
Mention of he who shall not be mentioned usually results in pulled posts.
Which I suppose works for some because the evidence of their unChristian words is expunged and no longer available for all to see.
The last time I looked, the RCC had apologized for and was was making good on the charges against her, namely, the pedophile scandal, and as one priest pointed out here, if you are still suspicious, then you need to be suspicious of little league coaches, boy scout leaders, neighbors, and even your own relatives.
They've apologized? To whom and when and where?
And you're sure they're making good on it?
How?
And the old *they're doing it too so we're not so bad* canard doesn't fool anyone.
People who take the high moral ground, as the Catholic church does, DOES need to be impeccable in how it manages its affairs.
And by that I don't mean that no scandal never happens. That simply is impossible. But the mishandling of it for centuries is deliberate, and thereby inexcusable and deplorable.
“So which is it? Invisible or not?”
If you’d have read my post you’d know.
“They’ve apologized? To whom and when and where?
And you’re sure they’re making good on it?”
Yes, I can read, I know these things.
“People who take the high moral ground, as the Catholic church does, DOES need to be impeccable in how it manages its affairs.”
It strikes me that you’re the one trying to take the high moral ground.
“Mention of he who shall not be mentioned usually results in pulled posts.”
Voldemort?