[BlackElk]

Wikipedia is certainly quite fallible on matters of faith and morals. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not at all fallible (see Vatican I of the 1850s) on matters of faith and morals. If you are Catholic, you must accept papal infallibility as a matter of dogma or be in schism or worse. If you are not Catholic, no one Catholic purports to require your acceptance of dogma.

When Wikipedia admirably avoids theorizing on its own but depends on papal encyclicals such as Evangelium Vitae and Veritatis Splendor, the view is that of Blessed Pope John Paul II in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff and successor of Peter and not that of J. Random Wikipedia editorial hack. This is the equivalent of providing footnotes to back up your college research papers.

Also, understandably, I did not see your evidence that the GOP has long been in decline because of the moral relativism of the pro-abort, pro-faggotry, gun grabbing, ohhh soooooo genteelly "moderate GOP-E, culminating in the impending nomination of Mittler.

Thanks for playing, sort of!

[BlackElk]

#205: Paragraph 3, Sentence 1:

“....your evidence that the GOP has NOT been in decline...”

[raccoonnookkeeper]

All I see here is someone snootily hanging any old phrases together at random, after having begun to pontificate from the Wikipedia. This is called something like shooting in the dark then whatever you hit call it the target.