[notthat]

I'm assuming you didn't vote for Bush in November, then? Because I don't understand how a true conservative, one who believes in "limiting the power of the state" and "preserving maximum freedom for the individual" could possibly find that in this administration. I myself used to be Republican, but I figured if I was going to have to vote for a big government candidate, I should at least vote for the side that didn't hate gay people.

I certainly don't want the Catholic Church to endorse abortion any time soon (I'm pro-life), but their position on homosexuality has changed just in the last 25 years (JP2 acknowledged it as being something that we don't choose), though I don't expect the Church to endorse gay marriage, either. But as Andrew Sullivan has noted, the Church has gone a long way in the last few years to stifle debate on any policies or doctrines, and I just don't think that's healthy for an institution, especially not one that claims over a billion followers and is seen as the very public face of Christianity.

All institutions evolve and change, and the Catholic Church has been no exception. And I agree with you that there are certain "eternal truths" that shouldn't be changed (pretty much anything from the Nicene Creed, for example). But I think many of the institutional processes that have been tied to those truths are just daffy, like the ban on contraception.

Nice Roseanne Roseannadanna reference, though.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I happily voted for Bush. Yes, he favors much more government than I'd like, but surely much less than Kerry. In my view he was an infinitely better choice than Kerry on both foreign and domestic issues, and a better human being to boot.

As to the policies of the Church: sounds like we're not that far apart. But many critics of this Pope and the JP II apparently DO want the Church to alter its understanding of eternal truths.