There is a difference between a critic and a lemming. And what I am criticizing is the lemminglike uniformity of those who swallowed the media's spin uncritically.
Someone who was actually able to think for themselves would be capable of asking themselves this question: "The mainstream media spin every story to benefit the left. Do they have an ulterior motive in their journalistic crusade against the Catholic Church?" But many FReepers proved themselves incapable of such critical analysis.
Ad hominem is a tactic of the weak.
I'm glad to hear you say that for two reasons:
(1) My argument was not based on ad hominem. The argumentum ad hominem is: "you're a bad guy, therefore what you say is wrong." That wasn't my argument, which you apparently didn't bother to reflect on for even a moment.
(2) You've employed ad hominem here against me, characterizing me as a compulsive with "weird" and "bizarre" aspects. Therefore, according to your formulation, you accuse yourself accurately of the same weakness which you inaccurately ascribed to me.
I consider that ad hominem and hyperbolic. The words I use are the most accurate ones I can think of to describe the psychological construct you implicity propose be used.
That said, I can agree with you that the media has a bias against the Church and seeks to degrade Christian at every turn.
I can even agree that the state failed miserably in pursuing pedarists and child rapists in all walks of life.
But that still leaves the wee bit of a problem of the dead serial rapist priest who was tranferred around and covered up for. I haven't seen the Church deal with the real Problem. Attacking the Church's enemies if fine and good, but it's not the whole picture.