- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
Hmmm...dunno, dong.
Nor me, all I can do is interpret what I see, hear and read. Much like most of us really.
I was a kid at Catholic school during Vatican II, and much of the flip-flopping on doctrine was clearly an ecumenicism of convenience.
I played for the other team, although that of which you speak was before my time.
The Catholic church realised that they had to play nicely in the sandbox with other faiths, lest their own practices be scrutinised too closely, and peopel start to ask questions of why one faith was valid, and others not. No faith can stand that kind of scruitiny for too long.
Indeed, well as you know, in Britain the RC Church learned that lesson the hard way well before either our times. Joking aside, yes the Anglican Church has it's fair share of skeletons too. Personally I think religious difference is akin to bald men squabbling over a comb.
Of course, he could be that out of touch, you know.
Ivory towers and all that? It's certainly plausible.
He's no fool, one only need read his lecture (I posted some extracts earlier) and, based on what's been written I'd wager few here have, to conclude that. I don't question his intelligence, merely (on the assumption he had no such ulterior motive) his judgment. Alternatively if his motivation was along the lines you suggest - "Off with his head." :tongue: