[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.

[metmom]

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.

That is true indeed.

But it's so much easier to dismiss a former Catholic's position if you can paint it as being the result of emotional failure. It's an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. It attempts to discredit the message and the messenger.