Stringsinger says: For non-Catholics, however, the Pope's edicts, however socially conscious and constructive lacks the freedom to break the yoke of institutional imprisonment since these progressive ideas of freedom of Choice, birth control, accepting homosexuality, and ordaining women to the priesthood can't be swept under the carpet. These "antediluvian" edicts dilute the Pope's message.

I disagree, Frank. I think you have to take a person or a group's positions on various issues and deal with them individually. You can't just say, "He doesn't follow my agenda on thus, thus, and thus, so I can't believe what he says on issues we might agree on." Even though you consider a person's opinions on some issues to be neanderthal, I don't think that gives you the right to discount that person (or group) altogether. If we write people off totally because of partial disagreement, then we'll never come to agreement and cooperation on anything.

And when you're dealing with a group, that sort of polarization is even more deadly. I belong to the Catholic Church, which has positions you oppose on treatment of women and homosexuals. But I, part of the "loyal opposition" in the Catholic Church, agree with you on both women's and homosexual issues. So, do you discount and condemn me for belonging to an organization whose positions I share your opposition to?

It gets really messy when you issue blanket condemnations. Most people are blind-sided on at least some issues. If you use blind-sidedness as a criterion for considering people valueless, you can ignore almost everybody in the world and convince yourself you are vastly superior to them.

I think it's better not to get bogged down in that sort of combative relationship. Better to take people for their good points, and coax them along where they're behind. The more people we can get to seek common ground together, the better off we are.

-Joe-