tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post5172749205851741508..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Rome FallingMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-61383570448956359852009-12-30T20:15:57.214-06:002009-12-30T20:15:57.214-06:00This is riviting. So much food for thought and ex...This is riviting. So much food for thought and excellent comments. I did find one group of comments to be quite strange. They referred to the story of a Brazilian man who raped his stepdaughter. "Raping his stepdaughter is actually seen as a more moral sexual act than having sex with his wife if they are using birth control. Raping his nine year old stepdaughter is a sexual act open to procreation. According to the Church, God's law favors rape over birth control." I totally disagree with this. I doubt you could find an intelligent person in the Church that would agree with this. The Church teaches that sexual intercourse is only licit within marriage and since this is an act of incest, the Church would strongly condemn it. The Church teaches that acts of intercourse within marriage should be open to procreation. I don't think that the Church teaches that acts of rape should be open to procreation. I never read in any Church documents that rape is preferable to birth control.Mareczkuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13122584421854834046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-12679759019304941862009-03-11T10:11:00.000-05:002009-03-11T10:11:00.000-05:00Fr O' Leary:I never suggested that excommunication...Fr O' Leary:<BR/><BR/>I never suggested that excommunication was in order for all dissenters. That is ridiculous.<BR/><BR/><EM>you do not recognize any freedom of conscience among Catholics to dissent from mistaken Church teachings</EM><BR/><BR/>When did I ever say that people should not obey the certain judgment of their conscience?<BR/><BR/>Since you've studied theology, you would be aware of the possibility of a malformed conscience, sincere but mistaken, and of the obligation of informing one's conscience. Within those parameters, of course one has to obey one's conscience.<BR/><BR/>You speak glibly about mistaken Church teachings, as if that were a self-evident reality. How do you know it's not your conscience that is mistaken instead?<BR/><BR/><EM>Needless to say you would not like to see any such Catholics teach theology</EM><BR/><BR/>Who was asking what I would like or not like? The fact is, I've known many dissenters who teach theology. Maybe you didn't know I studied in an American seminary for two-and-a-half years.<BR/><BR/><EM>indeed you are prepared to delate them to ecclesiastical authorities to block their careers</EM><BR/><BR/>I was not involved in the incident involving you and John Heard, and am not familiar with all of the details of that case.<BR/><BR/>However, I will say that public scandal requires public response, as an act of charity. What could be more public than teaching in opposition to the church, on the church's payroll and under church auspices?<BR/><BR/>The point would not be to block anyone's careers, but to guarantee that Catholic institutions are fulfilling their obligations to the faithful who support them and study at them.<BR/><BR/>If people want to study elsewhere, or throw their money at other efforts, they can. Of course.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-64200968870023520262009-03-11T00:55:00.000-05:002009-03-11T00:55:00.000-05:00Joe: "Clayton finds any faithful dissent grounds f...Joe: "Clayton finds any faithful dissent grounds for excommunication."<BR/><BR/>Clayton: "You misrepresented me again. I said NOTHING like what you have claimed in your histrionic comment."<BR/><BR/>But Clayton, you did say that What Clayton originally said: "You repeatedly speak about "faithful dissent" is an oxymoron, something that cannot exist. You talked of the impossibility of abandoning church teaching and still being a faithful Catholic.<BR/><BR/>Since you do not recognize any freedom of conscience among Catholics to dissent from mistaken Church teachings, you write off huge numbers of your fellow Catholics as unfaithful. They are Catholics only on sufferance at best.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say you would not like to see any such Catholics teach theology; indeed you are prepared to delate them to ecclesiastical authorities to block their careers. This kind of myopia is what has allowed our Church to fall into the hands of abusers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-48655628773325396202009-03-10T23:58:00.000-05:002009-03-10T23:58:00.000-05:00Father O'Leary -LOL!You misrepresented me again. I...Father O'Leary -<BR/><BR/>LOL!<BR/><BR/>You misrepresented me again. I said NOTHING like what you have claimed in your histrionic comment.<BR/><BR/>The tactics of deceive and dismiss are transparent.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-74650328006509501482009-03-10T20:33:00.000-05:002009-03-10T20:33:00.000-05:00Clayton finds any faithful dissent grounds for exc...Clayton finds any faithful dissent grounds for excommunication, showing firstly his own ignorance of theology. Unfortunately the Church is full of people like Clayton, who use the Catechism for inquisitorial purposes to shore up their own insecurities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-15673461707585900752009-03-10T07:34:00.000-05:002009-03-10T07:34:00.000-05:00Are you prepared to consider the possibility that ...<EM>Are you prepared to consider the possibility that gay people are capable of experiencing sexual relationships marked by justice, wholeness, and life-giving love?</EM><BR/><BR/>I can imagine that some people have an inner narrative like that. Whether it corresponds to what is true -- beyond a solely subjective sense -- is a separate question. <BR/><BR/>So you've spent years studying under and alongside like-minded individuals. That doesn't strike me as having any necessary relation with getting to the truth of things.<BR/><BR/>You repeatedly speak about "faithful dissent," and I've read your many attempts to make sense of that oxymoron. <A HREF="http://www.doxaweb.com/blog/2008/11/loving-church-or-using-her.htm" REL="nofollow">I've made attempts to understand what others mean when they use similar language.</A> It remains entirely unintelligible to me, as is abandoning Church teaching and still professing that one remains a faithful Catholic.<BR/><BR/>It would be one thing to say, "I have fundamental disagreements with the Church, and I refuse to change my mind; therefore, I no longer profess to be a Catholic." That position makes sense to me. It's sad, but intelligible. Your own position, on the other hand, seems untenable, if not dishonest.<BR/><BR/>So attempts at dialogue don't make any sense to me at this juncture.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-57893355626839891712009-03-10T07:15:00.000-05:002009-03-10T07:15:00.000-05:00Father O' Leary ("Joe"):You wrote: did you not app...Father O' Leary ("Joe"):<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM> did you not applaud Dreadnought when he wrote a certain letter to my potential employer? Did you not say we must keep the church free from wolves in sheep's clothing, such as yours truly?</EM><BR/><BR/>I don't recall the comment. I do remember following the story. I may have expressed the opinion that you ought to be held accountable for your behavior.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-26788267167572907092009-03-10T00:31:00.000-05:002009-03-10T00:31:00.000-05:00In the Pew Report one can read this:"Other surveys...In the Pew Report one can read this:<BR/><BR/>"Other surveys - such as the General Social Surveys, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago since 1972 - find that the Catholic share of the U.S. adult population has held fairly steady in recent decades at around 25%. What this apparent stability obscures, however, is the large number of people who have left the Catholic Church. Approximately one-third of the survey respondents who say they were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic. This means that roughly 10% of all Americans are former Catholics. These losses, however, have been partly offset by the number of people who have changed their affiliation to Catholicism (2.6% of the adult population) but more importantly by the disproportionately high number of Catholics among immigrants to the U.S. The result is that the overall percentage of the population that identifies as Catholic has remained fairly stable."<BR/><BR/>ONE THIRD of those raised Catholic are no longer Catholic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-51123688331064331652009-03-10T00:21:00.000-05:002009-03-10T00:21:00.000-05:00Clayton, correct me if I am misremembering, but di...Clayton, correct me if I am misremembering, but did you not applaud Dreadnought when he wrote a certain letter to my potential employer? Did you not say we must keep the church free from wolves in sheep's clothing, such as yours truly? Please excuse me if I have confused you with someone else. If I have not, I think I should advise Michael Bayly that you and Dreadnought are rather dangerous people to hold dialogue with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-46909259552387750342009-03-09T23:49:00.000-05:002009-03-09T23:49:00.000-05:00Hi Gus,Thanks for stopping by and sharing your per...Hi Gus,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by and sharing your perspective. You obviously put a lot of thought into your comment - and I appreciate that.<BR/><BR/>It's getting rather late so, for now, I think the best way I can respond to your concerns/critiques is by directing you to a previous <EM>Wild Reed</EM> post in which I respond to another reader who also questions just how Catholic my perspective on this blog is. <BR/><BR/>This previous post can be found <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/04/answer-to-troubled-liberal-catholic.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-1558771559548310692009-03-09T23:30:00.000-05:002009-03-09T23:30:00.000-05:00Hi Clayton,You write: "So does this mean that, for...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>You write: <EM>"So does this mean that, for instance, anyone who disagrees with you about this is simply wrong? Does an experience of the Church that is not parallel to your own count for anything? For instance, is the lived experience of the members of Courage simply invalid?"</EM><BR/><BR/>I'm glad you brought up the experiences of the members of Courage.<BR/><BR/>I would never say that their experience of God in their lives is invalid - despite the fact that I doubt that the apostolate would ever be so generous when it came to <EM>my</EM> experience of God in my life as a "gay" man. (But let's not get into that. After all, I'd hate to be considered a "victim"!)<BR/><BR/>My problem with Courage is that the apostolate universalizes an understanding of homosexuality that for the vast majority of people does not reflect the collective wisdom of the people of God - gay or straight. Put another way, for most gay people the Courage way of thinking and talking about homosexuality does not correlate with their own experience of God in their lives as gay people. Negativity of any sort - including homonegativity - makes human flourishing difficult.<BR/><BR/>Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again: if people feel that God is calling them to be celibate - great! Go for it. I'm troubled, of course, by the belief that undergirds this decision on the part of members of Courage, i.e., that homosexuality is a "disorder." (At the very least, the Church should be open to listening to and sharing alternatives ways of understanding homosexuality and alternatives experiences of homosexuality.)<BR/><BR/>My issue with the church is when it projects its limited understanding of homosexuality out to the rest of us; when it tells us we're <EM>all</EM> supposed to view our sexuality as a "disorder," and abstain from sexual relations - despite the fact that this expectation lacks good reasoning and, from my perspective, sensitivity and compassion.<BR/><BR/>But look, Clayton, you know all this. None of this is new to you. And for readers to whom this issue and discussion <EM>is</EM> new, I suggest you read my three-part series "The Many Forms of Courage" - a series that starts <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/01/many-forms-of-courage-part-i.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Now, Clayton, you also say: <EM>"Maybe it never occurs to you that you could be mistaken about others. In such a case, I suppose the idea that you might misrepresent them would not cross your mind."</EM><BR/><BR/>Of course it's crossed my mind. I'm a gay Catholic man who faithfully dissents from the church's teaching on homosexuality! I've spent years . . . <EM>years</EM> . . . studying and reading and discerning. I take very seriously what I write, and do not take lightly the critiques I feel called to make.<BR/><BR/>The result of this journey? I can honestly tell you this: <EM>I am not mistaken when I say that LGBT people, along with heterosexual people, can and do experience sexual relationships marked by justice, wholeness, and life-giving love.</EM><BR/><BR/>That's my bottom line; my "non-negotiable." If one isn't open to that - or even open to the possibility that what this bottom line says might actually be true - than I think it's fair to say that dialogue would be futile.<BR/><BR/>Are you open to the possibility that it's true, Clayton? Are you prepared to consider the possibility that gay people are capable of experiencing sexual relationships marked by justice, wholeness, and life-giving love?<BR/><BR/>And it's no use turning it back on me and asking, "Ah, but Michael, are you prepared to consider the possibility that what the church teaches about homosexuality is true?", because I've already said that I <EM>have</EM> considered it. I even once believed it. But I don't anymore. <BR/><BR/>And, finally, yes, I think it's possible to be in fellowship with people we can only manage to tolerate. What's the alternative?<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-67001666832527060062009-03-09T23:04:00.000-05:002009-03-09T23:04:00.000-05:00I am sympathetic to the statement that there needs...I am sympathetic to the statement that there needs to be certain "non-negotiables" for real fellowship to be lived...in the abstract, but one of the better terms JPII used for the Church was that it is a "communio." The Church is meant to be relational. Now, in a relationship-be it a marriage or good friendship-yes, there need to be non-negotiables, but they need to be few, lest ideology trump love.kevin57https://www.blogger.com/profile/01681985465980196347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-17196384352944656612009-03-09T22:56:00.000-05:002009-03-09T22:56:00.000-05:00Hi Michael, This is the second time I'm writing to...Hi Michael, <BR/>This is the second time I'm writing to you and it'll probably be the last.<BR/>The first time I wrote was to share with you my excitement at having found a blog from "a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective". I consider myself as such and it is always joyful to find companions on the journey. I should explain that I am a self described liberal who usually votes Democratic, who opposed the Iraq War, who supports universal healthcare, who opposes capital punishment, etc. I'm also the president of a local chapter of Dignity. So, I don't think that I'd be very welcomed by conservatives, either political or religious ones.<BR/>However, the reason why I'm writing today is to say that over the past several months my excitement has turned to dissapointment and with this column to utter dismay. You see, I've realized that this blog is just an exercise in false advertisement for while you may in fact be progressive and gay you are most definitely not Catholic. <BR/>Imagine for a moment that someone who described herself or himself as LGBT had a blog where all they did was to criticize Queer culture and extoll the merits of heterosexuality while basically saying that the best way to be gay was to belong to Courage. Such a blog would be a farce. That person might indeed be homosexual but she or he would not be gay, i.e., self accepting of their sexual orientation. Now, here you describe yourself as Catholic but almost always you are criticizing the Roman Catholic Church extolling the merits of other religious traditions such as Sufism and basically saying that the best way to be Catholic is to be Protestant. You basically deny every Catholic dogma that you address whether its the hierarchical nature of the Church, the qualitative difference between the priesthod of the ordained versus the priesthood of the baptized, papal infallibility, etc. (BTW, all of the preceding are clearly affirmed by Vatican II). Furthermore, you misrepresent Church practice on indulgences and excommunication. Finally, you seem to be engaged in this tearing down of the Church with glee since you believe that Catholic orthodoxy must give way to Protestant congregationalism where there is no universal Magisterium and only a local communal authority to determine worship and belief. Of course, it is your right to promote your agenda but I have to call you out and make it clear that what you advocate for is not Catholicism. You often state that you believe that the center (Rome)of the Church is dying while the periphery (where you situate yourself) is thriving. Well, I'd wager that twenty years from now the Roman Catholic Church (where Christ's Church subsits-see Vatican II) will be around while a group like the Spirit of St. Stephen Community will have dissolved altogether or find itself becoming increasingly agnostic or even atheistic; the inevitable result of Protestantism-see Northern Europe). Michael, I don't know if you are calling yourself Catholic intentionally to mislead or if you are just not aware of how far from the Church you already are but please realize that having cut yourself from the vine there is nothing left but to wither. I will pray for you (and others in the SSSC) that you may come back to the Church and really begin to integrate being progressive, gay, AND Catholic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-71623510928564453602009-03-09T21:34:00.000-05:002009-03-09T21:34:00.000-05:00their "terms of engagement" around the issue of ho...<EM> their "terms of engagement" around the issue of homosexuality are untenable from the standpoint of compassion, justice, logic, and human experience.</EM><BR/><BR/>So does this mean that, for instance, anyone who disagrees with you about this is simply wrong? Does an experience of the Church that is not parallel to your own count for anything? For instance, is the lived experience of the members of Courage simply invalid?<BR/><BR/><EM>how exactly does one model non-misrepresentation of others when one doesn't believe that one is actually engaging in misrepresentation?</EM><BR/><BR/>Maybe it never occurs to you that you could be mistaken about others. In such a case, I suppose the idea that you might misrepresent them would not cross your mind.<BR/><BR/><EM>once it becomes clear that one or both sides have certain non-negotiables, then the focus of the dialogue needs to shift to how best we can stay in fellowship despite our differences</EM><BR/><BR/>The assumption here is that fellowship is always possible, even when non-negotiables are not shared. This seems to me a fairly weak concept of fellowship. It might be more accurately called tolerance, which is something far less desirable than fellowship. I don't see how there can be any authentic <EM>fellowship</EM> without agreeing on essential (non-negotiable) matters. One can always seek to tolerate people who have diametrically opposed worldviews, but tolerance is pretty thin gruel.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-40718324349850322792009-03-09T21:06:00.000-05:002009-03-09T21:06:00.000-05:00Joe,You don't know me personally, but you've found...Joe,<BR/><BR/>You don't know me personally, but you've found a label with which to caricature me. And you've also imputed motives, as though you could read into my soul. How would you know what I sincerely believe, or what I give warm approval to?CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-79362679313326280342009-03-09T19:54:00.000-05:002009-03-09T19:54:00.000-05:00Hi Clayton,Thanks for that link. I find it intere...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for that link. I find it interesting that the Vatican report's total number of Catholics "relates to the number of people baptized as Catholics." <BR/><BR/>The problem, of course, is that by themselves, these numbers tell us absolutely nothing about the state of the church.<BR/><BR/>For example: what do all these baptized Catholics <EM>really</EM> believe? Are they even "real" Catholics (after all there are some who argue that if one doesn't follow the pope on everything then one isn't a "real" Catholic!). Do all these folks actually identify as Catholic? What does such identification actually mean to them? What of the millions who have left or who are leaving? Are they still counted as part of the "growing" Catholic Church due to their baptism?<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-48712029384922970672009-03-09T19:38:00.000-05:002009-03-09T19:38:00.000-05:00Hi Clayton,I believe I do give serious and credibl...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>I believe I do give serious and credible attention to the hierarchy and to Courage. That this attention is also <EM>critical</EM> is what I believe is problematic for you.<BR/><BR/>Also, I don't believe I'm misrepresenting these particular entities and organizations in my <EM>informed</EM> critique of them. Like many others, I've simply come to the realization that their "terms of engagement" around the issue of homosexuality are untenable from the standpoint of compassion, justice, logic, and human experience.<BR/><BR/>(Also, how exactly does one model non-misrepresentation of others when one doesn't believe that one is actually engaging in misrepresentation?)<BR/><BR/>Of course, through honest dialogue untenable positions (on any side of an issue) can hopefully be identified and transformed. I'm definitely open to transformation of my life and ideas - and have experienced such transformation firsthand (as many posts on this blog <A HREF="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-footsteps-of-spring.html" REL="nofollow">testify</A>). Yet very little of what I (and the vast majority of gay Catholics) hear about homosexuality from the institutional church convincingly conveys to us awareness of God's transforming presence and action in our lives and relationships as gay people.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, I'm open to dialogue to the extent of seeking and finding points of commonality. Yet once it becomes clear that one or both sides have certain non-negotiables, then the focus of the dialogue needs to shift to how best we can stay in fellowship despite our differences.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-28335348948657525112009-03-09T19:37:00.000-05:002009-03-09T19:37:00.000-05:00Clayton is just another neocath tactician, though ...Clayton is just another neocath tactician, though he may sincerely believe he stands for dialogue and objectivity. The targets of Michael's critique have been given the benefit of every doubt over and over again for 30 years, and Michael's criticisms, far from being the impulsive potshots Clayton would caricature them as, are based on the considered judgment of the most respected theologians and other analysts, who have watched this ecclesiastical tragedy unfold with deep sadness, and who have often paid for their criticisms by losing their teaching positions, something of which Clayton warmly approves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-10679660462786262462009-03-09T17:55:00.000-05:002009-03-09T17:55:00.000-05:00If there were any indications on your blog that yo...If there were any indications on your blog that you gave serious, credible attention to the people and institutions you routinely slander, such as the Pope, the cardinals, the US bishops, the Courage movement, etc.<BR/><BR/>I haven't experienced you engaging your opponents on their own terms. Which is, of course, your right. You can do with your blog whatever you choose. It's just not a posture of someone authentically interested in dialogue.<BR/><BR/>You don't engender trust by misrepresenting others.<BR/><BR/>I imagine you will turn this around and say your opponents do the same thing. Well, then, model the change you want to see, rather than playing the victim.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-26952399669076258302009-03-09T17:46:00.001-05:002009-03-09T17:46:00.001-05:00Hi Clayton,I'm curious: What would indicate to you...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>I'm curious: What would indicate to you that I'm listening? <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-58122615102875352352009-03-09T17:46:00.000-05:002009-03-09T17:46:00.000-05:00Here are the latest Catholic population statistics...Here are the <A HREF="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/257839,vatican-catholics-make-up-17-per-cent-of-worlds-population.html" REL="nofollow">latest Catholic population statistics</A>, on a global scale.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-82355211046309245902009-03-09T17:42:00.000-05:002009-03-09T17:42:00.000-05:00If I thought you were listening, I would.If I thought you were listening, I would.CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-89469719420653110762009-03-09T17:33:00.000-05:002009-03-09T17:33:00.000-05:00Michael,The article says that the Catholic segment...Michael,<BR/><BR/>The article says that the Catholic segment of the population dropped one percentage point to 25%. Statistically, given the increase in population overall, that is an increase in pure numbers.<BR/><BR/>While many will point out rightly that both increases in general population and Catholic population in the US are a result of growing Hispanic populations. It is an error or a lie to report that the numbers are shrinking.<BR/><BR/>But let's set all of that aside. The greater point of the article in the Strib is that people are turning more and more away from institutional religion.<BR/><BR/>So attacks on the Catholic Church because of perceived declines should be viewed in a larger context.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the 'find God anywhere'and especially in sexuality line you seem to espouse would fit better in a world without such mundane and oppressive institutions -the likes of which challenge us to be more spiritual and thoughtful than animals when it comes to our behavior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-36853136838655311102009-03-09T17:07:00.000-05:002009-03-09T17:07:00.000-05:00Hi Joe and Phillip,Thanks for your positive feedba...Hi Joe and Phillip,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your positive feedback.<BR/><BR/>Phillip, I particularly appreciated the ultimately hopeful message of what you shared.<BR/><BR/>I've recently incorporated into my prayer life a special prayer for the church - that all its members may be open to God's spirit of love and transformation, and to the forms of renewal that are emerging throughout the church.<BR/><BR/>I'm finding that this prayer is helping me stay hopeful, focused, and energized in these often, as you say, "discouraging" times.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-84735419011955084902009-03-09T16:56:00.000-05:002009-03-09T16:56:00.000-05:00Hi Clayton,I think what’s happening, in part, is t...Hi Clayton,<BR/><BR/>I think what’s happening, in part, is that we’re looking at things from two very different perspectives. Could it be that one person’s “straw man” (i.e., misrepresentation) is another’s very real experience? <BR/><BR/>Also, from my perspective, your whole comment is somewhat of a “straw man.” I mean, if what Colleen and/or I are saying is that weak and easily refutable (the definition of a “straw man”), why not just do so? Simply dismissing our observations and experiences as “straw men,” and leaving it at that, seems to be a ploy to misrepresent us (and our perspective) as Catholics concerned by the state of the church. <BR/><BR/>Also, let's not forget that the Roman Catholic hierarchy's stated understanding of sexual orientation, gay people and gay sexuality comprise one of the most "absurd caricatures" out there. Are you as dedicated to challenging this caricature as you are the ones that I'm supposedly presenting? <BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.com