Oh, I so don't want to go there with you! I've always enjoyed your posts and your opinions. What you and American mom are doing is obliquely saying that I'm hostile to converted Catholics.
Not true. Converted Catholics have an advantage over us cradle Catholics. They get an in-depth education into our church, at an age where they can truly understand it. Yep, for the most part, they know more current info than we. My only problem is that some of them seem to think that since they're info is more current, they are better Catholics than cradle Catholics. To some extent, I'm happy for them. They've got this great new thing, being Catholic. They want to show it off, they're just thrilled with it. I understand that (OMGosh, if you could hear me when I learn about a new theory or law! I'll talk your ears off!) I guess they don't understand how offensive it is to be told that I'm not as good a Catholic as they are.
I keep in mind that there is only one Judge that I need to please. I try not to judge others, and I certainly never offend (intentionally) another's faith. (Get this(irony alert): I'm attending a Christian university where all but 1 of my fellow students are Protestants! We all are learning much about each other's faith, but the main thing we are learning is to not knock each other's faith. They don't evangelize the 2 of us Catholics, we don't evangelize them. We respect each other.)
Thanks for the nice words. They come when needed. ;-)
In looking at the correspondence between you and AnAmericanMother, I don't see that her initial posts to you were untoward.
Her first post to you was #33. It lays out an outline of the case in favor of Venerable Pope Pius XII to counter your initial remarks that were negative toward the pontiff.
Then she asked you whether or not you were particularly well-informed on the subject, and then stated contingently that if you weren't:
“If not, that doesn't make you a ‘thinker’ as you claim. You have to have some material to work with, otherwise you're just casually repeating slander and maligning a good man.”
In that the last two statements are contingent on whether or not you're well-informed on the subject, they seem a reasonable conclusion to the post. Altogether, the post is a challenge to you to back up what you say, which is sort of a big part of what Free Republic's about.
The tone is firm and unyielding, but hardly harsh or nasty, at least not as it comes across to me.
The second post to you, before you replied to any of hers, is #35. This starts out with a monitory statement about what Catholics generally do and don't do. It isn't aimed directly at you, but it wouldn't be terribly unreasonable to make the inference.
Nonetheless, in my own view, I'd probably go with the benefit of the doubt, here, and still assume good will on the part of the correspondent.
The next sentence starts out with the statement of a conditional again, which makes me more inclined to interpret the first statement as a general statement, and not necessarily aimed directly at me (or, in this case, you).
The statement is true enough. If you haven't read up on the controversy, you're not a very engaged Catholic, at least not on this topic. Especially if you hang out much on FR!! LOL!! I don't know how many threads I've read about this in the last 10 years! Wish I had a buck for each one.
Again, the poster assumes nothing, but rather states in the conditional.
The tone is a little more strident, but from my perspective, tends toward the milder of side of what is permitted at FR, especially in the Religion Forum.
Your first post at #47 was:
“Ahhh...there’s no better Catholic than a converted Catholic. gotcha.”
As your current post to explains, although it isn't exactly meant as a slur against converts, it is, nevertheless, a negative comment about the poster's status as a correspondent in the discussion. One might rephrase it as, “There go those converts again!”
As a response to AnAmericanMother's posts, it offers no counter-evidence, no counter-argument, no nothing other than a [negative] statement about your correspondent. It's just an ad hominem.
That's the breakdown in the conversation, in my view. When folks move to ad hominem arguments, it isn't unreasonable to infer bad things.
Now, you don't want to get into it with AnAmericanMother to defend your initial remarks.
It isn't unusual on FR for folks to request a defense of one’s remarks, but I know of no rule that requires a poster to answer the request with an actual defense. Sometimes, folks make casual remarks without wanting to get into a big debate. Or at least, I know I often make quickie little remarks on threads without wanting to get into a big, long, drawn-out debate.
But inferring from your first post some hostility to converts wasn't unreasonable (especially since your meaning, if not precisely hostile, wasn't really a positive one).
And I don't think that AnAmericanMother's request for you to offer some defense of your initial post was unreasonable, either.
Finally, keep in mind that there have been uncounted threads about the sanctity or lack thereof of Venerable Pope Pius XII on Free Republic, and many, many, many folks in these parts have used these threads to attack venomously and unfairly not only Pope Pius but the entire Catholic Church. Some of these attacks have been scurillous.
So, please accept my own apologies if I gave offense, but your initial post seemed to be a potential lead-in to another such attack.
sitetest