You wrote:
“Your comments are no less rash than what you accuse Lea of and the link seems to deal with something entirely apart from my post.”
Rash? What exactly did I post to you that was rash?
“And your comment really have no bearing on what I quoted.”
Did I say it had immediate bearing?
“Lea is not likely to be appreciated by Catholics as even the Catholic Encyclopedia says of him,”
And you missed the point, not surprisingly. Catholics can appreciate him for what he got right - amassing huge numbers of sources - but take him to task for what he got wrong - interpreting those sources.
“In short, he’s being called a “muck raker” but the scandals are and were real.”
Some are real, but saying that because scandals exists that that means it is okay to distort the entire history of an idea, a practice, or a Church is something only bigots would do.
“If few have read Lea I encourage them to do so and Peter Damian and the news of today letting them make their own judgment.”
And I encourage people to read Herbert Thurston to see how Lea literally made a mistaken interpretation - objectively shown - on every single page of some of his works. Then ask yourself, if that is how bad he was at interpreting history why is it that so many anti-Catholic bigots want you to rely on him? Isn’t it clear then that the anti-Catholics bigots encourage such practices to deliberately keep non-Catholics ignorant?
What do know of me? Young, old, male, female, where I live, what I do, my background, my training? Hmmm? You don't. Period. So making a comment like this strikes out on several levels, being rash indeed:
“Since, as with almost all Protestants, you probably know little about history,......’
Just what particular work of Thurston is the one you have in mind?