Folks, you need to read what has been said, and what my position is. Perhaps we are all so entrenched in our positions that there is naught but words flowing with no attempt being made at understanding. Let my try to make it clear as to the intent of my posts.

First off, if ones intent is not to tear down an institution due to the belief that it has no redeeming value, one stays within and works for change. That is my understanding of loyal opposition. To remain a voice for change without trying to destroy the institution. While I respect your rights to not agree with my beliefs, you have no right to tell me I am wrong to have them. They are mine.

I believe, as a tenet of my faith, that when the Pope speaks in very limited instances, as the spiritual descendant of the rock upon which The Church was built, he speaks with the protection of infallibility. Yes, Peter T., I do believe this. But you must understand that these pronouncements are very rare. This protection does not apply to most things. On these things that are not spoken with that veil, I am free to agree or disagree. My disagreements certainly extend to the role of laity and specifically the role of women, certain forms of birth control, how the Church has handled the abuse tragedy, celibacy, and others. My disagreements are pointed specifically at the hierarchy of the institution. This is distinctly separate from my spirituality and my faith, which is an expression of that which lies within me. My beliefs with regard to my spirituality, the composition and relationship of this world with the otherworld, what happens when this house we liven dies, and so on, are what I believe in. I don't believe in the institution, it is just the outlet which I use to keep in touch with and express my spirituality. My beliefs are probably closer to those of the early Irish Catholics whom I have studied since long before it was fashionable. Many of my inner beliefs surely have their roots in the "religion" practiced by the pagan druids whom were probably some of the most spiritual and brilliant philosophers that ever lived. They understood the relationship of all creatures and beings with the Earth and the Universe better than most. And they understood that our lives are a quest that we can never expect to be victorious in. It is ajourney.

Then why do I call myself a Roman Catholic? Because in its celebrations, rites, and meditations, I find a structure that I can use for my personal journey. In the tribulations that the institution of Roman Catholicism faces, I find an outlet for my eternal quest to make things better. In the ever present struggles of many of the Saints, and martyrs, to change the world for the better I find hope in the face of the disappointments that that same institution specifically, and mankind in general are continually putting upon us. In the tenets of my faith, I find a code which I can live by. For me to leave this discipline, I would have to believe that it was inherently evil and could do no good. When I look at the examples of good people using this institution, and the teachings of Jesus, to face the struggles, it gives me hope. Mother Theresa would be the first example that comes to mind, and there are many others. The Capuchin monk, Solanus Casey, is another that leaps to my mind. Are there examples of abusers. Yes, many of them, but there are many more that are holy people that struggle heroically in the face of evil to make a difference.

Which brings me to Pope John Paul. Let us examine what I said. It was in response to friend Mrzzy, as well as a comment by my very dear friend, Peter T. They had both expressed cynicism with regard to the institution, and made gratuitous (IMO) statements about the Pope. I responded thusly:

While I understand the nature of your cynicism of the Catholic Church, Mrrzy, your comment seems to demonstrate a real lack of understanding of this man's accomplishments in service of others. I can understand not agreeing with some of his statements, etc. But to suggest that Karol Wojtyla has not spent his life in service of others is ludicrous.

This response did not exonerate John Paul's role in the scandals that are rocking the church. It simply pointed out that to suggest that he has not served people is ludicrous. I stand by that. We must examine a person's life in total to get a full read on that person. The book on this Pope will surely contain chapters that I will be disappointed with. But in the sum total, he will be seen as a man who lived by a code, and strove to serve many causes for the betterment of the people of the world. This is a major reason why he gets a great deal of respect from many people, even though they disagree with elements of his beliefs.

The response, and the thing that you are all focusing on followed the following post in response to mine:

......the pope proves his utter contempt for humanity.

To me this is an irresponsible thing to say. You may not agree with this man's beliefs, and you are entitled to that. But to suggest that he has "utter contempt" for humanity is just not supported by the record. Your word's have meaning and you should check what these words mean. What I believe you meant to say was that you have contempt for what his view of helping humanity constitutes. Had you said that I would likely have debated it, but not tried to attack your belief structure. That is yours to have.

In closing, It is not only possible, but inevitable that while humans are capable of independent thought, and reasoning based on their own life experiences, value systems, and beliefs, we will not all agree on what is the best or worst with regard to institutions and solutions. But intellectual discourse requires that one be held accountable for the statements they make. And that is what I feel I have done.

Mick