Western civilization is greatly indebted to the Catholic Church. Modern historical studies—such as Dr. Thomas E. Woods' How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization—have demonstrated with force and clarity that it is the Catholic Church who has been the primary driving force behind the development and progress of the civilized world.

The Church has provided innumerable 'goods' for the benefit of humanity. Nonetheless, modern critics assert that no amount of good could outweigh the evil the Church has allegedly committed in contrast. Talk is cheap, however. We must look at the evidence. Has the Church really been an irreconcilable force for evil in the world?

There are three principal issues repeatedly brought to the table by adversaries of the Catholic Church: religious violence, priest scandals, and ill-treatment of women. But do these objections hold water when their integrity is put to the test? And are they enough to render the Church "no good" in our final analysis?

Now let's be clear: throughout the duration of this piece, I am not seeking in any way to deny or defend the sins of any Catholic individual or group. The chief question I propose is not whether there have been malicious members of the Catholic Church (there obviously have been). The question at hand is whether the Catholic Church as a whole ought to be considered a force for evil.

Let's consider briefly the general assertion that religion is the chief cause of violence in the world. This position, in fact, is not supported by the data. Joe Heschmeyer has shown this quite articulately in his recent article at Strange Notions, Is Religion Responsible For The World's Violence?

Evil members of a Church do not necessarily indicate an evil Church. One must be cautious; because this line of reasoning commits an error in logic called the fallacy of composition. We would not say, "the elephant consists of tiny parts, therefore the elephant is tiny"; and thus, we should not say that the Church is sinister because she has sinister members. The parts do not necessarily define the whole; and in the case of the Catholic Church, the parts justify the whole. As G.K Chesterton writes in The Everlasting Man:

“The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. ”

Sound historical scholarship has shown—contrary to what modern textbooks might falsely suggest—that the Crusades ought not be considered such a black mark in Catholic Church history. Dr. Diane Moczar summarizes the facts in her historical defense, Seven Lies About Catholic History:

"To recapitulate: the Crusades were a response to unprovoked Muslim aggression against Christian states, as well as a response to the enslavement, killing and persecution of countless followers of Christ. They were not examples of European colonialism or imperialism, which lay far in the future, nor were they intended to convert anybody; they were a military answer to a military attack." (p.73)

Moczar demonstrates that the Crusades were largely just (see CCC 2302-2317) and with far-reaching benefits for the people of Europe. She cites historian Louis Bréhier, who also concludes:

"It would be unjust to condemn out of hand these five centuries of heroism which had such fertile results for the history of Europe and which left behind in the consciences of modern peoples a certain ideal of generosity and a taste for sacrifice on behalf of noble causes....." (from The Crusades: The Victory Of Idealism)

Steven Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, has also clarified the true nature of the Crusades in his footnote-laden treatise, The Glory of the Crusades. Weidenkopf's title is bold, but his analysis is fair and evidence based. In his scholarly assessment of the Crusades he carefully notes:

"To recognize the glory of the Crusades means not to whitewash what was ignoble about them, but to call attention to the import in the life of the Church." (p.14)

Moczar likewise recognizes that not all things regarding the Crusades are to be "glorified." Nonetheless, both Moczar and Weidenkopf decisively demonstrate in their research that, by and large, the Catholic Church's participation in the Crusades ought not be considered evil nor unjust.

The real story of the Inquisition is—like the Crusades—not congruent with what one finds in today's error-ridden history textbooks.

Statistics regarding the total number of Inquisition-related deaths have been shamefully embellished by antagonists of the Church, with some asserting numbers in the millions. Though the precise numbers are foggy, recent scholarship has put the number of deaths at just a few thousand over several centuries.

Modern research by historical experts, such as Henry Kamen, Benzion Netanyahu and Edward M. Peters, have demonstrated that the Inquisition was not nearly as harsh or cruel as popularly suggested. Overturning traditional views, they have shown that the Church courts were often both patient and fair in their treatment of heretics. In fact, Church officials were so reasonable in the Inquisition process that heretics in the secular courts (heresy was also a political concern) would blaspheme with hope that they might be transferred to the more merciful Church inquisitors.

This is not to deny, however, that the actions of some Christians were unjust. Moczar concludes:

"Were there cruel inquisitors in some places? Of course. Were methods of interrogation distasteful to modern sensibilities? Sure... [But] given its formidable task of guarding the purity of the Faith in Christian souls, however, the overall record of the Inquisition in dealing with heresy is not only defensible but admirable." (p. 102)

This is not a defense of the guilty. It is a defense of the unjustly accused and stigmatized. The data is clear—celibate Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than clergy from any another denomination, or even teachers and other secular adult leadership. As Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has stated:

“We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this [abuse] or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else." (Pat Wingert, “Mean Men,” Newsweek, April 8, 2010)

"Catholic clergy aren’t more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general." ("Do the Right Thing", psychologytoday.com, March 24, 2010)

Celibacy is not the problem—and Dr. Chris Kaczor has made this decisively clear. He summarizes the evidence with this statement:

"The evidence is substantial and confirmed by psychologists, researchers, and insurance companies: Priestly celibacy is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children." ("Celibacy Isn't The Problem", This Rock, vol. 21, 5)

In his vastly informative book, The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, Dr. Kaczor's research conclusively disarms the celibacy-leads-to-pedophilia myth and puts it to rest once and for all.

Indeed, Catholic clergy should be held to a higher standard—the highest standard in fact—but it is unreasonable to condemn the whole priesthood because of the sins of an ultra-minority. There is simply no good reason to fear Catholic clergy any more than other religious leaders, teachers or the general population. I say without hesitation (and as a dad) that Catholic priests, by and large, are among the most trustworthy citizens of our society today. And the data agrees.

Finally, is the Church's view on women really immoral? Let's begin with the fiery issue of "female ordination": Why aren't women allowed to serve as priests in the Church? Is this not a violation of gender equality?

Properly understood, this is a matter of the Church's incapability to ordain women due to what a Catholic priest is. It is the nature of the priesthood that makes female ordination an impossibility. These key facts may help to underline this point:

II) The twelve apostles ordained men only to succeed them (1 Tim 3:1-13; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5-9)

III) These men were given a special gift and authority to serve in persona Christi or "in the person of Christ" (see 2 Cor 2:10; John 20:21-23)

IV) Christ was a man; therefore those who serve "in his person" must also be men.

Therefore a female Catholic priest is about as possible as a male mother. The nature of the Catholic priesthood renders female ordination impossible, just as male mothers are an impossibility because of the nature of motherhood. Indeed, male-only ordination is discriminatory; but this is not a matter of preference but of deference to the "nature of things"; for it is the nature of nature to discriminate.

"The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and...this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4).

What was Jesus' attitude toward women? Once again, we turn to the words of St. John Paul the Great:

"When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the gospel contains an ever relevant message that goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity that women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love." (Letter to Women, 3)

Like her Founder, the Catholic Church reveres 'woman' and attributes to her the highest dignity. The mother of Christ, for example, has been widely revered by Catholics from the earliest centuries of Christianity as the mother of all Christians (Jn 19:26-27). No person in history—except perhaps Christ Himself—has received more love and honour than Mary. The Church has also named four female Doctors of the Church—Sts. Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Therese of Lisieux and Hildegard of Bingen—and recognized them for their extraordinary influence on the life of the universal Christian Church.

And is it not true that women largely tend to avoid places where they are unfairly discriminated against and patronized? If the Catholic Church really treated women unjustly, would we not expect a female aversion to the Church? Surely. But this is not what we find.

85% of those responsible for altar preparation are women. Over 80% of the CCD (religious formation) teachers and sponsors of the catechumenate are women. Over 75% of adult Bible study leaders or participants are women. Over 70% of those who are active in parish renewal and spiritual growth are women, and over 80% of those who join prayer groups are women. Nearly 60% of those involved with youth groups and recreational activities are women. (Catholic Women As Ministers And Theologians, 240)

Women are not afraid of the Church. They are attracted to it. Why? Because she fights for the beauty and dignity of femininity as no other institution on earth does.

Referring to the words of his saintly predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI said these words in praise of women:

"As my venerable and dear Predecessor John Paul II wrote in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem: "The Church gives thanks for each and every woman.... The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine 'genius' which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations." (General Audience, February 14, 2007)

In the final analysis, the Catholic Church is unquestionably a force for good in the world—indeed a force for greatness. She always has been; and because the gates of hell can never prevail against her, she always will be. We have Christ's promise.

Yes, the Church has proven herself to be the lifeline of our civilization—and without her—humanity will fail to thrive. As the great defender of the Church, Hilaire Belloc, concluded in Survivals And New Arrivals:

"If the influence of the Church declines, civilization will decline with it... Our civilization is as much a product of the Catholic Church as the vine is the product of a particular climate. Take the vine to another climate and it will die."

Why do you so often resort to making up things that aren’t true?

Is the following TRUE or not?

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

This whole post will sound like a lecture, but I know of no other way to put it. I am sorry for this, because I do love my you. You may be a Christian, but you have no authority.

That is not the issue.

Can you even UNDERSTAND what the central-most issue WAS???

Can you understand what the differences in conceptual approach to the Lord's Supper are?

THAT was the issue.

This is not about ---- What YOU believe.

This is not about whether you think I "have authority" or not, either.

Your own personal opinion as for those, is truly neither here nor there.

What I was trying to get to -- was simple acknowledgement of what it is that others believe--- how that differs from what it appears to myself that many Roman Catholics believe, yet how scripture can be claimed to support either & both, even within Roman Catholicism, itself. This dual nature of understandings is itself part of the larger overall problem.

What I mean by that is;
The descriptions leave things to be able to be understood (from Roman Catholic perspective) resulting in either; corporeal "flesh & blood" type of thinking, even though that flesh be at all times entirely invisible, not subject to being tasted, touched, smelled, or otherwise AT ALL discerned ----

--- a view which may be more as Orthodox view, the Liturgy itself including the invitation to the Spirit of the Lord to inhabit/become, or else simply BE the sacramental bread -- and that change be Great Mystery, one to be spiritually discerned.

At this point perhaps a Catholic could ask themself --- how on earth could that which is physical, corporeal existence & "presence" if you will, be subject to needing be spiritually discerned --- if the bread is as human flesh & blood, as you seem to be arguing for?

How also could one eat of truly present, physical human flesh (as we more typically understand human "flesh" to be) and NOT gain nutritional sustenance from doing so (beyond what nutritional value may be available by the physical substance of the wafer itself, the remaining 'accident' as it were), thus the human being eating of it, nutritionally speaking, by natural digestive processes --- profit from it?

Is He passed into the draught (after exiting digestive tract/lower intestine) entirely undigested?

If any other form of actual flesh (meat) is bodily consumed...then the flesh (our own flesh) profits from it.

Hence the reason behind why John 6:63 (among many other aspects of Scripture) points directly away from anything of a corporeal flesh, carnal [see definition 3] interpretation of John 6.

This also is why I also provided for discussion, in extra large font (in hopes you would not miss it!) verses 61 & 62, from John 6. What will they say after he "goes back to where He was once before!", he asked them. And where was He before, but with the Father in heaven? There is no need for Jesus to again become flesh & blood literally to simply be, sacramentally & truly present as, and/or within the thanksgiving bread of remembrance.

There are more than few Roman Catholics who know exactly what I'm talking about here ---- and agree with me in this, regardless if back in the 16th century, spiritual/pneumatic sort of view when expressed by Protestant Reformers was all but condemned by the a few RCC popes...

Popes are not infallible. They never have been. Even the Apostle Peter was not beyond some amount of correction.

I got about as far as this in further skimming of your seemingly non-answer reply;

This is why, in regards to faith, Catholics will not listen to what you have to say because you have no authority to speak from.

I have perfect authority to bear witness for those things the Lord has done for ---- myself, directly.

Anyone else claiming equal or greater 'authority' for those particular, and highly limited *things* would need to be speaking prophetically, to have greater insight...

But there it in your [above] quoted statement --- the open confession that as a "Catholic", you are incapable or else unwilling to LISTEN to others.

It's just like I said, originally. It looks like I'm batting near a 1.000 here...

One can listen well enough to understand what an argument being made actually is, without necessarily agreeing with it. Yet you had accused me of not listening to 'Catholics" for my own not agreeing...when it is yourself who won't listen closely enough to even seemingly understand what it is which is being casually dismissed.

Yet a bit further on I see that you eventually addressed the central question---almost

Yes, it is true flesh and blood just as he tell us in John 6. That's the literal reading and we are not even sola scripture (sorry cheap shot). It looks like bread and wine, but is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus.

For that was supplied as reply, directly below your having accurately enough quoted the central point of the question, which was;

Is the "Eucharistic flesh" (to use the term which you supplied) composed of human flesh (and blood)

Do you realize that there are [Roman] Catholics who do not hold identical view, that upon consecration the wafer is turned into something of (for lack of more precise term) corporeal flesh, rather than this be by spirit (even though truly and actually present as being the 'transformed' bread)?

One freeper here who confesses to this not-"corporeal flesh", but spiritual presence view --- is a Roman Catholic priest, and another that I know of has been an RCIA instructor for decades. The latter is also one of the foremost RC apologists on the pages of the FR religion forum...

What's up with this [below] false set-up?

What gives YOU authority to tell me to, first;

Using your sola scripture only and read the following and tell me it is not literal. No commentary, just you and the Holy Spirit.

as for a limited portion of John 6, to then lay one me this false dilemma;

If you need to bring commentary into it, you do not believe in sola scripture and your interpretation has no authority.

Those of the early Church were not restricted in that manner, for that way leads to utter silence. Sorry Charlie, that's not the way it works...and being as those of the Church spoke as the spirit gave them utterance, then as a Christian who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (as I previously included some brief note of explanation for in comment #93) I myself have direct access to that same authority, and am also otherwise perfectly free to speak, without my own speech by default run contrariwise to the principle of sola scriptura -- as that one 'sola' fits among four others, as something of a tool of measurement & guidance. This is one of the oldest principles in the book. Try Deuteronomy 6:8 on for size, for starters...

I understand that Catholics wish to replace that with sola ecclesia (whatever we say) instead -- but that false sola is even less well supported in Scripture and earliest Church traditions both than the worst case scenario which can be made out contrary to sola scriptura -- for the earliest (perceived to be) heresies were combated not by claims to 'authority', even Apostolic authority, as much as when both sides of an issue could equally invoke the same authority, then Scripture itself would need be the infallible guide.

But you wish to speak of 'authority' while including your own self among a royal "we"? Really.

Have you ever prophesied a single solitary thing? I have, and those things did come to pass. That is the larger portion of the test.

Has the Lord ever spoken to yourself -- directly? He has to my own self, in myriad ways...

Have you ever laid hand upon & prayed for another to be healed -- and they were? I have.

Have you ever cast a demonic spirit out from another? The Lord has used myself to do so, in the past...

All those confirming signs -- that I walk with *some* true authority --- and what do YOU yourself personally have to compare with all of that --- and I haven't even told you all that there is of my own testimony!

Yet here I speak my own mind, not claiming infallible authority, and/or a "thus sayeth the Lord" sort of thing, though if you ever catch sight of myself doing so --- I would advise to pay close attention --- and let the Spirit be your own guide (in comparison to ---"oh, this is coming from a "protestant" so must be dismissed out of hand").

If one prophesy, let another judge. Not--- if one prophesy, if they are not part of your own sola ecclesia then it must be dismissed out-of-hand. That's the way the Jewish religious authorities were at times, way back when.

You did in this very note to which I now reply, instruct me to "listen to the spirit", did you not?

What happens when the Spirit of the Lord leads, guides, directs, or else otherwise 'speaks' to me? Did you not just allude that such a thing was possible -- for myself?

If such is not possible for one such as myself, then would that not render what you just required of myself an impossible demand?

A bit more consistency & intellectual integrity on your own part, would be helpful...

The principle of 'sola scriptura' is not necessarily SOLO scriptura. It was most certainly was not that narrowly SOLO for Martin Luther, Calvin, and hosts of others since .

I'm sorry, but your own way of propping up (and attacking) sola scriptura, is false strawman sort of application of erroneous assumption, of what under best understanding, is the best definition of what that principle is (and what it is not).

It should be left to the adherents of this principle of sola scriptura to best define what it is (and what it is not).

Yourself, and every other single Roman Catholic alive today, and all who have ever been alive since perhaps the Great Schism are the ones who truly lack authority to define (or should we better, more accurately say, re-define) the principle of sola scriptura -- for that was brought about, renewed from original & early Church tradition --- not by RC theologians, but by yet other Christians.

If papist Catholics here continually reserve the right to define their own beliefs -- then in this particular side-issue, the best working definitions of the principles of sola scriptura should be left to those who do make effort to adhere to/observe that principle.

So please bring on some more "attacks," Polly, I am ready.

It is not myself who acted the parrot. That's all you.

I am a man.

The rest of your mish-mash of reply isn't worth the trouble to attempt to untangle, then re-straighten.

The mass of erroneous assumptions underlying the most primary foundations of your arguments here, are rotten, and crumbling, like decomposed granite (sand) on a beach.

Like this;

"...We have an authority to speak from, an authority..."

What's this "we" stuff? Does that include YOU?

It is yourself who has little to no true authority.

This is why, in regards to faith, Catholics will not listen to what you have to say because you have no authority to speak from.

I have more authority than yourself.

As example --- I freepmailed Mark Bsnr (a Catholic freeper now passed away) and informed him that the Spirit of the Lord had revealed to me that his time (living) upon earth was at the time I contacted him, very short...like ... five, six, or seven months (tops) and then --- he would die.

He replied (graciously enough) that the doctors had given him about two to three months left to live.

I'm part of the real and actual Church, right now.

Are you?

So far, I can't tell that you truly are, other than for yourself sounding like/coming across to me, as a cracker eating PARROT of RCC apologetic.

I have no need for the assembly of such balderdash.

If the RCC has 'authority' comparable to the original Apostles -- then they must walk in it, and do the work (& perform the same miracles!) as those Apostles did.

Or trim back the overweening claims to their own alleged authority.

Claims like this, rather beg an entire host of questions;

A Catholic has one true deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit to draw from. It has one complete belief that was instituted by Jesus Himself and has been contemplated and meditated on for 2000 years.

Horsefeathers!

The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church was not written by Jesus Christ.

There are many items among and amid Roman Catholicism which defy Scripture and earliest Church traditions BOTH!

Trying to deny that fact runs contrary to even Rome's own biblical/historical scholars, although those persons have devised cunning methods of explanation to account for the differences.

Would you allow your child to go to a Saul Alinsky seminar? No, why because their belief if not truth and what truths they may have are distorted to fit their agenda.

Sorry pal, but on hosts of issues (pun intended) the Roman Catholic Church lies like a rug, all over the room.

Take your own Alinsky socialism Catholicism, and your liberation theology-tinged South American Jesuit pope, and go pound sand -- build the little castles (in imagination) of how utterly perfect & flawless Roman Catholicism is, and those fantasies will all eventually crumble, as assuredly as Mohammed was absolutely NOT a prophet of the Most High (God).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.