[Claud]

I don’t have a constructive replacement to offer, unfortunately.

Actually though, maybe what bugs me is the *personalization* of the issue. Calling someone an anti-Catholic is (the way I hear it anyway) a personal accusation. When we get into personal matters, the debate is already lost...what we are called to do IMHO is just to answer questions and correct misimpressions as often as we are called to— patiently, repeatedly and firmly.

Argue the issue, not the person.

[tiki]

I don’t use it in a personal way but in reference to a group-think kind of thing that exists.

[netmilsmom]

>>Actually though, maybe what bugs me is the *personalization* of the issue.<<

Go back and reread the “Anti-Catholic” threads.
The first, “Do you believe.....” question makes it personal. That’s what I have a problem with.

[FourtySeven]

I've found the term "non-Catholic" to be usefully descriptive.

Although I'm not through using the term "Protestant" when it's applicable, and, despite the protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary by some on this forum, it IS applicable to the Baptists.

The "Trail of Blood" is a "Trail of Baloney".