[metmom]

That sounds like something spewed by a bitter, failed Catholic who knows little about what the Church actually believes or teaches.

That's a pretty typical reaction. When someone can't refute the data or facts, to attack the integrity of the person presenting them.

When former Catholics present what they know to be the facts of Catholicism and what they experienced as Catholics and it casts the RCC in a bad light and cannot be refuted, then the charges are laid of vindictiveness, bitterness, ignorance of church teaching, and all manner of personal character failures in an attempt to discredit what they say as being biased or inaccurate.

Since the facts cannot be disputed or refuted, the only option left is to imply that the messenger is unreliable.

[Titanites]

That's a pretty typical reaction. When someone can't refute the data or facts, to attack the integrity of the person presenting them.

That might be true if the person had the integrity to actually post the data or the facts. All you've posted are muddled musings with no evidence to demonstrate what is being posted is true.

When former Catholics present what they know to be the facts of Catholicism

But it's when these "facts" have repeatedly been demonstrated to not be facts at all, but are still repeated, that it begins to look like bitterness talking. And repeatedly posting erroneous doctrine after being corrected can only be seen as failure.

Since the facts cannot be disputed or refuted, the only option left is to imply that the messenger is unreliable.

The messenger has demonstrated on her own that she is unreliable. For example, we're still waiting for you to post facts regarding the Ukrainians that cannot be disputed or refuted.

[boatbums]

That certainly seems to be the attitude of many here. I was thinking, though, about what you said regarding, "That's a pretty typical reaction. When someone can't refute the data or facts, to attack the integrity of the person presenting them.". Even IF former Catholics, who spoke about their experiences and what they knew about teachings they had received as Roman Catholics, WERE bitter about the deception they had been subjected to, would it change the relevance about what they said? I don't think it would. The emotional state of the person doesn't change the facts about what happened. So I agree that it is pure subterfuge to attack the character and integrity of the person speaking just because what they state is objectionable.

I would even go further and assert that the one denigrating a person with whom they disagree is who truly is demonstrating bitterness as well as anger. They are showing an inability to be confident in what they believe and so they must impugn the one they are in conflict with to settle their own doubts about their faith. I'm not a psychologist, but I recognize "projection" when I see it.