That’s one plausible
interpretation on the data.
However, unless serious authentic insanity is grossly evident,
OR
unless there’s serious evidence of a kind of duplicity where the talk is not walked . . . some serious denial is going on, not necessarily reaching the level of insanity,
THEN I’m very resistent to wholesale disregarding a person’s self-report of their EXPERIENCE.
I’ve demonstrated that a lot even toward some rabid clique types hereon.
THEIR EXPERIENCE IS AT LEAST THEIRS.
I may disagree with their labeling or their interpretations of THEIR EXPERIENCE, but it IS
AT LEAST
THEIR
EXPERIENCE and not mine.
DESCRIBING THEIR EXPERIENCE of RC education as extensive and reasonably good quality—regardless of exceptions, gaps, flaws—is for me—an easy thing to accept on the face of it.
We are not dealing with ignorant simpletons hereon.
These folks have sufficient mental horsepower and breadth of experience to know the difference between very low quality education vs very high quality or at least above average education.
To dismiss it with the blanket magical
“poorly catechized”
slam is just not logcial, not fitting, not accurate, to me . . . by a long shot.
Interestingly related to the "poorly catechized” remark, yesterday my husband and I took our stroke-survivor cousin (in a wheelchair) to her 65th class reunion. It is a Catholic school, the Priest knew them all and celebrated Mass before dinner.
Considering the "poorly catechized" remark and remembering that group last night, I really doubt that each and every one of them would be able to score 100% on a test even though they were raised in the Catholic faith and walked in it their entire lives.
But I imagine they'd all agree on the fundamentals. And I doubt anything they have failed to remember or remember incorrectly will be held against them when they graduate into the next life.
And yet that is how we're portrayed and treated.
The condescension demonstrated by the majority of the FRoman Catholics is palatable.