It never ceases to amaze me how such debates inexorably turn to the issue, sooner or later, of my Catholicism. It's as though the people I'm debating, absent any ability to engage me on the initial topics, turn to ragging on Catholicism as a sort of recovery method, perhaps hoping to sway sympathetic witnesses to their cause by playing to their deep-seated uncertainties. It's a rather predatory scheme, I note, and then one which also has a certain Pharasaic quality about it -- the implication seems to be that I, as a Catholic, am somehow "less" Christian than my opponent.

One of the more telling routes such digressions can follow, I've learned, is the issue of "accepting" Christ. Arguably, as a Catholic, I am down with the whole accepting Jesus thing, since I do in fact receive His flesh and blood as nourishment for my body and soul every Sunday. But practically speaking, sooner or later the issue comes down as to whether or not I accept Jesus Christ, personally, as my Lord and Saviour.

I rather enjoy being asked to affirm that I do, in fact, accept Christ in such fashion, in part because it means I can again confess my faith in the Lord. But in part, my enjoyment stems from the follow-up discussion to the statement. If my opponent says "okay then," I know he (or she) is being honest; if my opponent persists in attempting to state that Catholicism is antithetical to that very ideal, then I know he (or she) has an ulterior (and then, shall we say, "less than Christian") motive.