I can't think of any other reason for this sort of obsession. I mean, yes, I know the Church is amazing...were it not, there's no way I'd have chosen to stay part of it. But there's no need to be envious, people.

Look, it's really simple: if you want in on the Eucharist, RCIA cIasses begin at 7 PM on Wednesdays.

Update: it's not that I don't feel tempted to respond. I do. My lack of response does not imply an inability to respond, however. There are, I think, four main reasons why I am going to let it alone, however.

1) I've responded to it before. Or at least, I have responded to a goodly part of it before, as even a cursory examination of my past blog posts will reveal. And where I have not done so, others have. Actually, more than just one resource exists (although the first link has much better page design).

Why repeat what I and others have already covered? These resources exist for the concerned Reader to investigate. If, after investigating, the Reader still has questions, I will be happy to answer them. But I see little reason to waste precious hours on what would basically be a listing of previously-written answers.

2) the person posting the rather obsessively long list of anti-Catholic rhetoric is just quoting from other sources. Had he bothered to do his own thinking, as I tend to do (see my Marian articles), exceprting from those other sources but filling in his own reasoning between statements, I might be tempted to engage. But I see no need to go batting a parrot about the rhetorical head and neck.

3) the sources quoted are not exactly objective -- for the most part, they are explicitly anti-Catholic in their outlook, which is a little like arguing against eating meat by quoting only PETA web resources.

One also notes that the statements that are quoted from Catholic authors and sources are not actually doctrinal statement (though the sources treat them as such), but are in fact just examples of personal opinion. For the most part, at any rate. Occasionally, snippets of actual doctrine do appear in the listings given, but it should be noted that pretty much every quote in the entire obsession-ridden posting is taken grossly out of context.

It's easy to make something mean exactly what you want it to mean when you snip out half the words, plus the surrounding sentences.

4) Most importantly: this is just a distraction from the original topic. Let's examine how we got here, shall we (I will attempt to summarize)?

* * *

CWU Member #1: I'm really off-put at how some of us have apparently treated Theokhoth over the issue of his homosexuality.

CWU Member #2: What did I say that was so bad? Homosexuals are dogs...it's right there in the Bible. God is not all loving.

CWU Member #3: Member #1, who are you to complain? Where are you when we evangelize in OT? Where were you when the CU was attacking us? Where were you when WtF Dragon began to criticize us on his blog?

Me: Now isn't this just predictable? Instead of listening to reason and correcting the errant one in their own midst, the CWU has chosen to shoot the messenger, and to somehow drag my name into the fracas. Also: "God is not all loving," is he? MADE of FAIL.

CWU Member #3: Don't listen to "Where's the Fruit D"...he's just a Catholic, and you know how they are. Here's a list of Catholic doctrines over the years.

Me: The list is irrelevant and its entries are grossly out of context. There is almost nothing in the list that is anti-Biblical, and the one entry in it that is obviously an error has long been rectified.

CWU Member #2: Gay sex is icky, and Hitler was a homosexual. You see? Evil.

Me: This is kind of getting absurd. Theokhoth has repeatedly stated that he will not act on his homosexual inclinations, but will opt for a celibate life rather than commit sin. That seems a very Christian thing to do, if have read Corinthians correctly.

CWU Member #3: But for Theokhoth to date another man would be sinful, because it would be tempting.

Me: No more tempting than it would be when a man dates a woman. If the temptation that is inherent in the dating process is the only argument against Theokhoth one can come up with, then one should probably also argue that men and women ought not to date.

CWU Member #3: But a man dating a man is different than a man dating a woman.

Me: Granted. But I was talking about the core logic of the statement against Theokhoth's dating as it had been made. That is, I was saying that if the only logic propping up the proscription against dating is that dating causes sexual temptation, heterosexual dating must also be disallowed.

CWU Member #3: Yeah, well, you know how Catholics are where homosexuals are concerned...what with the priests and all. Is the abuse of young children another sacred Catholic "tradition"?

* * *

Do you see it, O Reader? It's rather obvious, so I hope that you do.

What had transpired, exactly? Though I'm summarizing, I think it's fairly clear that I made a logical counterpoint to something that was said on the False Witness Union. And instead of acknowledging the point made and changing the argument (which I would have accepted, assuming that the argument was more sensible), and instead of saying "okay, yes, one of us needs to tone back the rhetoric a bit," in regard to the CWU member who wrote such nasty things to Theokhoth, the CWU elected to take this approach.

And then Satan stepped in.

Satan loves discord between Christians, you see; he knows, as well as Christ knew, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So Satan seeks to undermine the relationship between Christians, and distractions of this nature are a perfect vehicle for doing so. Satan also hates truth, and seeks to distract any intense theological discussion which comes too close to making someone realize they've been wrong about something.

So what does Satan do? He inspires a distraction. And in this case, he acted to transform the discussion from one about homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 7, and proper modes of Christian witness...into a Catholic bash of epic proportions.

So that's the main reason why I won't respond point for point to this latest lengthy article. It wouldn't be good witness, and it would be playing right into the devil's hands. And as much as it chagrins me to see other Christians doing just that, I think I'd rather leave them to do so, whilst I move on to more important topics.