I wouldn’t expect you to take it personally.
Those were just given as examples of why civility is probably never going to happen.
Good try.
And I did notice that you never really did get any clear answers that you were looking for.
“And I did notice that you never really did get any clear answers that you were looking for.”
Marchmain took a pretty good stab at it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3676406/posts#17
Marchmain wrote: “Catholics (generalizing here, as there is every view and attitude across the board) do not care if the pope is a heretic or apostate. They are passive and non-intellectual. The spirituality is felt, not analyzed. Sure those on blogs like to discuss issues, but the typical Catholic is happy to go to mass, get an amusing homily, and maybe join a club or group. They have no idea what the pope said, and if it’s controversial they figure somehow everything will be ok. this is opposite of protestants who are active and focused. This has developed over centuries. Catholics are medievalists, protestants are dynamic. Clearly with a billion Catholics all this could be wrong in certain people. Both the lack of progress in the church, and the receptive beauty and peace, flow from an overall attitude of acceptance.”
I see you’ve already replied to Marchmain’s later comments.
Campion also made an attempt in #29: “The current Pope is free to reverse the purely administrative acts of his predecessors, but he treads on dangerous ground when he tries to reverse doctrine.”
While I’d like to see more substance—something a little more definitive and precise—I can at least appreciate the effort to explain.