a great post jennifer.

It is often I hear the word “hypocrisy” lobbed as somekind of proof that something is false.  Recently, I heard hypocrisy is not “saying one thing and doing another” rather it is “saying one thing and believing another.”  This concept cleared things up a little for me as you mentioned with the “‘See? Your beliefs are extremely difficult to follow!’” Yet there is another, far more important question that should come next, one that is too often left unasked: ‘But are these beliefs true?’”

Good post.

Great Post!  “Too often, we examine a moral precept, determine that it is hard, and then leap across a logical chasm to assume that it is therefore false”
This is it, in a nutshell. Rather than facing what’s difficult and pushing on, we determine that if it’s hard, it must be wrong. When did they say life was supposed to be easy?

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried” – G. K. Chesterton

“In this popular piety, we mark our gain in sensibility and our loss in vision. If other ages felt less, they saw more, even though they saw with the blind, prophetic, unsentimental eye of acceptance, which is to say, faith. In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which, long since cut off from the person of Christ, is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chambers.”

Flannery O’Connor

I really needed to hear this today. Thank you so much.

Nice viewpoint today. I like how your logic was so easy to follow—and the stop light example a good one.

Jim, I LOVE the Flannery O’Connor quote. Which work is it from? I really need to read more of her.

Thanks for sharing Jen. Spot on as usual!

This is a great post, Jen.  Perhaps you mean this for later, but what would’ve really rounded it off nicely, seeing as how we’re talking about optimizing our lives around what’s convenient as opposed to what’s true, and despairing that “your beliefs are way too hard to follow!” is pointing out how it all culminates in the Sacramental life of the Church, and what it’s for.  It helps us to live a life that would be way too hard if we attempt to do it on our own steam, and without the grace of God.  Those of us who read your ConversionDiary blog know that you know this, and that it’s all on your other blog;  all we have to do is connect the dots.  But what you’ve written seems like a nice point of departure for the importance of the Church’s sacraments, anyway.

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and left untried.” -GK Chesterton. Great post!

Creative Minority Reports Matt Archbold, called BS on this on 3/25.  He said his editor would have said Horse Hockey to this story.

The Chesterton quote which “Loud” posted was ringing in my ears throughout the read:

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and left untried.”

Besides that, the same logic can be used the other way. How about someone like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the world’s most notorious abortion supporters, who played the hypocrite in becoming pro-life? That in itself is a powerful witness, and can *suggest* the pro-life philosophy is correct, but in itself it doesn’t confirm or deny the veracity of the pro-life philosophy. Same with the (imagined?) hypocritical woman.

The New York Times is the epicenter of anti-Catholicism in the United States.  My assumption would be that the story is either a total fiction or greatly exaggerated.  On the very slim possibility that this really happened, you would have to search long and hard to find behavior such as this guy describes.

Unless he has a film of it, though, this story just seems to fit the NY Times’s Catholic-bashing agenda a bit too cozily to be credible.  I have to remind myself that there are still people out there who believe this paper.

Here’s a big red flag for me, in that story:
“One day she was missing. “I thought, ‘I hope she’s O.K.,’” he recalled.”
—-
Baloney (and other words). If this were true, he would have been thinking “Oh good, she gave up and went away.”  The whole story sounds contrived.

I agree, Redbox, unless this person is a saint (doubtful to say the least).  I’m not gonna lie: if someone was heaping that kind of vile abuse on me, it might be my second reaction to wonder if something had happened to him/her, but certainly not my first.

Shameless plug, I talked about moral principles on my blog here:

http://signsshadows.blogspot.com/2011/11/purpose-of-moral-principles.html

Basically principles are for when the going gets rough, you know what you CAN’T do.  Principles are not things to throw away when the going gets tough.

I think what would be particularly infuriating about witnessing this hypocrisy (if the story is true) would be the assumption of superior moral judgment by the woman. Other women are promiscuous and are unable to discern when it is OK to have an abortion. That’s why they cannot be trusted with this right. I, however, with my superior moral judgment would not misuse this right. So in a way, she never really believed it was wrong. It was only wrong for other, lesser women.

It sounds like a varation on the loose behavior of the aristocratic classes back in the 19th century. It was OK for people with superior characters to be idle, to drink and to behave promiscuously because they could make good moral decisions on the fly, and bear the expense of consequences. But the common folk—they had to be hard-working, abstemious and virtuous. They couldn’t be trusted to set their own boundaries. They needed to have rigid rules.

Redbox and others are sure convinced all atheists—even those who converted from religion—are liars by default and there is nothing “good” about them. “No, a ‘real’ Catholic/pro-lifer wouldn’t get an abortion for convenience—the story must be a fraud.”
—-
I suppose you’ll think this is also a lie:
——
http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/13416357/Christians_Have_as_Many_Abortions_as_Everyone_Else_Catholics_Have_More
——
A lot of you so-called Catholics find their beliefs are too inconvenient in life—-but you’ll forgive them because they still go to church every Sunday and protest at abortion clinics.

Hi Angela - Could you read the article before commenting? When you make points that have already been addressed in the article, it damages your credibility.

When people left Jesus about His teaching on the Eucharist, they said, “This is hard teaching, who can accept it?”
Then Jesus turned to the Apostles and didn’t ask them, “Do you think this is hard, too?” - He asked them if they wanted to leave on account.

No one- not even Christ Himself- pretends that the Truth is easy.  It is hard teaching, and we all fall- yes, even Christ.

No, the story doesn’t quite ring true, but consider this: A couple of friends of mine (one worked for Fr. Paul Marx, Human Life Int’l, and the other for Reagan), stood and prayed in front of Dr. Daniel Joseph’s late-term abortion facility for more than a decade.  They were scratching their heads when he, a Jewish man, baptized his newborn in the Catholic Faith.  He continued to ply his grisly, lucrative trade. He drove a Porsche, and his wife, a Range Rover.  Interestingly, his body language was one of *shame*.  My friends stood there rain or shine, on the killing days, praying and supplicating faithfully.  Imagine their amazement when some years passed and their local newspaper ran a beautiful piece on Dr. Joseph’s artwork.  His paintings were an exquisite tribute to the sufferings of Jesus on the cross.  Human behavior can seem odd, obsessive, and contradictory.  Grace is mysterious.  God never ceases to search for His lost lamb.

JoAnna, I’m assuming that you have not previously encountered Angela.  Just to bring you up to date:  she has long since damaged her credibility.  She is actually more than one person.  On other threads, she has admitted to being one of several college students who post on Jennifer’s articles from the same computer to “agitate” (her word) and to “take us down”.  She is a troll.  She has made vulgar and bigoted comments on many threads, and she takes advantage of the fact that Jennifer’s articles are essentially unmonitored.  (And then sometimes she acts like an oppressed victim, which is laughable since I don’t know too many oppressed victims who can freely come to an opposing website and post vulgarities to their heart’s content.)  Engaging her in dialogue only encourages her.  Now that she’s started posting on this thread, you’ll have ample opportunity to see her in action.

Claire, I have encountered Angela before. I used to get angry and annoyed at her posts, but now I just feel sadness and pity whenever I see one. She’s obviously hurt by some past event and is lashing out.
.
New readers probably don’t know her history, however, so I respond for their benefit.

Sorry JoAnna.  I lose track of who has been on previous threads.  Yes, I totally agree with you that someone who would devote this much time and energy to a non-productive pursuit probably has some unresolved anger and/or hurt.

anna lisa—did you read my pastes about that false saint-to-be, Mother Teresa, or are you abandoning that thread and telling everyone else to avoid me? She allowed thousands of people to die that could have been helped. If that happened in the U.S. she would have spent the last years of her life in prison. I guess Christian morals were inconvenient for her.
——
JoAnna—Jennifer is using part of an article to tell a story out of context and applying “inconvenience” as the reason for that hypocritical pro-life woman for having an abortion and not having the decency to admit to herself that there are some circumstances it may be necessary, even if her own reasons were shallow. Already there have been suggestions that the story was contrived—probably by people who did not click on Jennifer’s link and see the whole story.
——
Clare is also sending her warnings—did anna lisa tell you that I’m a gay man?

Angela, do you really think that your bitterness and vitriol will convince anyone that you should be taken seriously?

I do know that you are taking a lot of trouble to tell me I don’t matter, that you know all about me, that I’m a liar and you don’t trust me, that you pray for me, that some of you think I’m more than one person, that at least one of you thinks I’m a gay man, that I’m wrong about everything and I don’t understand you, that you think I am in some kind of pain that causes me to hate Catholics and choose evil. Is there enough space to add more?
——-
Yet you keep exchanging comments about me—can’t leave it alone about my awful comments and opinions, evil intentions, and generally disturbed personality. You can’t handle it that I question why you would believe your particular myth or any other. You label every question you can’t answer as “insulting” and get all defensive, and whine about being attacked for your faith. You can’t accept that being Catholic does not save you from being human.

Perhaps this article is appropriate—is it more convenient to pray for me than to put up with me?

All that text and you still failed to answer my question.

Like your question was important.

By the way, JoAnna, how would you like it if I spread the word that your were a transsexual lesbian getting over a breakup with your dog? I got that from the same source anna lisa got her information that I’m a gay man.

Why do you care?

Angela, Nearly everything that has been said is in direct quotation of your own words, or as a description of your own actions.  You are the one crating strawmen.

Be honest. Stop manipulating. *Then* you can reasonably expect someone to talk to you about important things. Be honest.

You matter, A.  You matter enough to live a life of integrity.
Be honest.  Lovers of truth, be honest.

Having been in several prolife events and prayed at an abortion center, I find it hard to believe that people were yelling anything at those entering the place, let alone getting on a ladder to yell obscenities and such. That just isn’t how it’s done, although it is the stock leftist portrayal.

Love the stoplight analogy..
beautiful commentary Jennifer…one of your b
est. God bless.

A friendly reminder:
Angela does not come here for “debate” or any legitimate discussion. She comes to ask loaded questions and attack. When you don’t give her the answer she wants out of you, she will accuse you of evasion, delusion, foolishness, or another of her favorite words. As well-intentioned as some of you may be, it will get you no where. Save yourself the headache.

So clearly stated, Jennifer. You have a gift for that. I am sending this on to a friend who does not see that fashioning a moral compass based on convenience/inconvenience is, at best, flawed. Thanks so much!

Redbox:  that was exactly the point I was trying to make.  If people feel called to engage her in discussion, that’s fine, but generally it just results in circular arguments with some insults and vulgarities strewn here and there.

Kaye:  exactly.  There are some extreme prolifers who tarnish the reputation of the majority of the prolife movement by being aggressive.  But most, especially among Catholic pro-lifers, are peaceful in their methods.

And now back to the article…..
-
I’ve always wished for a snopes.com for these type of stories.  You can track down any number of email stories, urban myths and legends because one couple has the dedication to do so.
-
Would it even be possible to verify this doctor’s story?  Probably not due to ‘patient privacy’ but I wonder….

JoAnn:—I’ve written many times before—I’m angry at Catholics—particularly on this post who believe the secular population is evil, are politically involved in invading my private healthcare decisions and options by penalizing contraception and abortion, denying the teaching of evolution in schools and/or establishing creationism/ID as a valid scientific alternative, and excluding yourselves from secular laws because of your religion, which makes you think you’re above every other citizen of this country.
——-
It has to be pounded through your thick skulls that this will not be tolerated because it is contrary to our civil rights.
—-
Redbox—I doubt you will get everyone on the blog to ignore me completely because, deep down, I offend them with my presence because they cannot justify themselves and need to condemn me for blasphemy and pray that I’ll “find God” so I’ll stop protesting, and hurting their feelings by telling them true things about how people like Mother Teresa do more harm and the Vatican is as corrupt as any other third-world government, if not more.
——
Claire and Joanna: I made the mistake of baiting you with the idea that I was more than one college student on the same computer, after the exchange that some one thought I was one of two people who posted here—I believe the phrase was “they have the same snark.” The rest of the story—-that I’ a gay man getting over a breakup, that Donald and I were “flirting” online, that Donald and I were the same person, that there were “some Angelas” they liked better than the others, etc.—-were created by anna lisa and backed by Corita because I criticized A.L.‘s attitude toward her mother-in-law—in severe and heartfelt terms. Look back at the exchange on Jennifer’s contemplation of the Atheist Convention.
——
All of you are accusing me of not being honest, while you make up stories about me. Can you explain that? Your theories about me imply homophobia, hatred and contempt of atheists and false pity for the “suffering” of which is NOT part of the atheist experience. To describe you as hypocrites would be too much of an understatement. You have some really twisted thinking and it must take some hard work to keep you feeling good about yourselves as you look down on others.
——
That’s why I’m here.

I can get as many email addresses as I want.

The obvious troll is obvious. Hi Angela. http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72_z.jpg

Rachel W—what’s wrong about snopes. com? Do you need a Catholic version to filter the truth about urban myths so that you can feel better?

Claire—do you think privacy in healthcare is unimportant? Would you have the woman’s name exposed so pro-lifers can picket her—or kick her out of their picket line?

I urge *everyone* who wants to talk with Angela to follow her suggestion and read Jennifer’s thread on the Atheist Convention. There you can see her refusal to come clean about being one person, or more.  And the rest of the “many faces of Angela”.
Angela has been urged to correct the impression she has given, that she is a liar, a rageaholic and/or a bully, perhaps by being more honest and engaging in discussion that is not riddled with non sequiteurs and ad hominems.  And one that responds to the words people write instead of what is in her own mind.  So far that urging has not been heeded.
—
From my personal and work experience with abusive narcissists I am guessing that where we go from here is progressively more and more outrageous and abusive accusations, illogical and obsessive thoughts and the occasional interspersing with moments of seeming calm and reasonableness, a tactic calculated to get a previously-shod hook into back into the good-hearted Other.  The mark of the narcissist is the inability to stop a course of action once it has been decided (“I am RIGHT to do this!”) or, really, to do any true self-criticism that does not serve the needs of the ego. 
—
Heh.  Aren’t we all harboring a little narcissist in us?!
—
I certainly can’t venture to say I “know” the true nature of “Angela”, whether it is one person with a passing, but unfortunate obsession intensified by neediness (been there), numerous people in a weird, disenfranchised adventure (not really been there but know it happens) or just one little old narcissist, male or female, possibly with mental health problems (I am actually leaning this way b/c of this last post.)
—
But it certainly *looks like* the narcissist pattern is in full swing.  The ego wants its food.  Keep on your toes, people.  Maybe the storm *will* resolve (one way or the other) and the truth revealed, if we ignore the background noise it creates?

Corita—what is “narcissist” about pasting articles about Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity?
——
So what if I’m a troll, many people or one, male or female, gay or straight, honest or a liar, mentally sick (that’s a new one) or well, hungry for attention, or what ever twisted ideas you have about me. You believe what you want—that’s one of my points—and ignore the fact that I haven’t told you much at all—except for baiting an exchange, which I now regret because you find it convenient to discuss that rather than address my real questions.
—-
Con keeps wanting to bring up Hitler and Stalin, no matter what anyone says.
——
Believe it or not—I almost fell for anna lisa’s horror story about her husband’s family and how he escaped to the sanctuary of Catholicism. I hope the takes care of her children for other reasons besides being a Catholic—even alligators take care of their young.
——
There is not much you can say about Jennifer’s articles, because all you have is praise, and that gets boring after a while. You’re having much more fun trying to figure out what to do about me.

Angela, all that text and you have still failed to answer two simple questions.
.
1. Do you think that spewing bitterness and vitriol are an effective means of converting the target audience of NCRegister readers to your point of view?
.
2. Why do you care what random people on the Internet say about you? If you wish to call me a transsexual lesbian with tendencies toward bestiality, feel free. It doesn’t change who I am, my intrinsic value and dignity as a human being, or the opinions of my dear friends and family, who know the truth of who and what I am. Are you missing this affirmation in your own life and thus feel the need to seek it online from anonymous people on the Internet?
.

“Angel, Angelo, Angela” needs to engage in some meaningful *work*. Someone, or something supports him/her, so that he/she can indulge in hate ALL DAY LONG.  Forget the gay man Angelo.  I should have realized that your incessant venom would be insulting gay men by association. You just remind me of this gay activist I’ve been reading about that is single handedly terrorizing the ENTIRE boon dock town he lives in, because he *HATES* the Catholic Church.  His gay lover is rather prominent, and has hidden him away because even he is *afraid* of him. The problem is that everyone else works for a living, and all this angry soul can do is rant, rail, and start frivolous lawsuits. So yeah, your behavior reminds me of him.  I think Corita *NAILED IT* above.  You are an abusive narcissist. Would that you would use your time productively in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, but instead you continue to try to vomit ALL OVER the place, and most tellingly on Mother Teresa.  I’m still waiting for you to tell us all about the charitable institutions all over the world that Hitchins and His ilk have set up to SHOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HOW ITS DONE.  You know what this is “Angela”?  Tough love.

Rachel W. - yes, more refutations of anti-Catholicism on Snopes.com would be helpful! There are several Catholic sites that provide Snopes-like refutations (catholic.com, for example), but sadly the majority of anti-Catholics won’t take the time to read them and evaluate the facts presented on their own merits (rather, they immediately dismiss the refutation because it’s from a Catholic perspective).
.
I think the story as related could at least be corroborated if there are public records available to support this lady’s existence. Police reports, for example; I have to imagine her tactics made her known to the local authorities even if they never had cause to arrest her. Her actions seem to cross the line into harassment so it’s probable she was brought in for questioning at the very least.

I just think Angela is highly self-important and can’t deal with the fact that other people think differently - and vote differently - than her. Her post, above, makes it clear that it’s all about politics. It’s plain that she can’t handle opposing viewpoints.

JoAnna:
—.
1. Do you think that spewing bitterness and vitriol are an effective means of converting the target audience of NCRegister readers to your point of view?
I don’t expect to convert anyone here—that’s a lost cause. I am getting you to doubt yourselves—I know this because you keep talking about me.
—-
2. Why do you care what random people on the Internet say about you? If you wish to call me a transsexual lesbian with tendencies toward bestiality, feel free. It doesn’t change who I am, my intrinsic value and dignity as a human being, or the opinions of my dear friends and family, who know the truth of who and what I am. Are you missing this affirmation in your own life and thus feel the need to seek it online from anonymous people on the Internet?
—-
I don’t particularly care what random people on the Internet say, because I am an posting under a pseudonym—you are doing the same. What you say about me doesn’t change who I am. I was just coping anna lisa, who has her own made-up theories about me. Again, irony and sarcasm don’t come across on this site—I was trying to get you to imagine how I feel about her invented description of me—which every one is taking up. I don’t think anyone will take up my comments about you because you are one of them. I am the “enemy,” so whatever I say to you is a lie and whatever you write about me must be the truth about me.
—-
Much more convenient to bear false witness than to do some research, isn’t it?

anna lisa—YOU are the one who called me a gay man as though it was an insult. Why should my denial—which I haven’t said—indicate that I’m the homophobic one?
—-
I remind you of some gay activist who hates the Catholic Church? So do all gays hate the Catholic Church, and protest and rant because they have nothing better to do?  Can you tell me why?
——
I have pasted links to videos and articles and pasted quotes directly from one of them, from various witnesses, including but not limited to Hitchens, and I’m willing to bet that you didn’t look at them. Yes, I vomit over Mother Teresa and the nuns who continue to oversee the slum hospices called the Missionaries of Charity. Can you explain them?
——
Some people call it “tough love” to beat their children with a belt. Do you love or hate me?

I’m a little confused about why I’m being questioned about privacy in healthcare?  I said nothing about revealing the name of the woman in question.

Stop feeding the troll.

Angela,
Well, if you are many people than
A. You are being dishonest by using one username.
B. You are a hard person to talk to, since every indivdual person who uses this name to write thinks differently and needs to be talked to in different ways. “You don’t shoot a man with ideas, or reason with a charging bull.”
C. It is innapropreate for you to respond, under one name, to a comment made to another person of the same name, since you might not know the EXACT mindset of the your fellow poster (I’m sure they have no prob, but it gives them shelter. If they can’t defend themselves, they can say they AGREE with you, but in this way they neither need to agree or even aknowlage the questions/answers of other people, it helps them ignore what might have otherwise have been a fruitful argument.)

This would explain you inconsistancy. Why you often contradict yourself in what you say from post to post(Didn’t anyone ever warn you that two confilcting opinions put forward by one person can’t be viewed as vaild ones, since they are their own disproof? No one will take that person seriously). But then agian, your inconsistancy dosen’t really warrent this much explaination, since you are inconsistant in individual posts:

“You believe what you want—that’s one of my points—and ignore the fact that I haven’t told you much at all—except for baiting an exchange, which I now regret because you find it convenient to discuss that rather than address my real questions.”

So, you “HAVEN’T TOLD US MUCH AT ALL-EXCEPT FOR BAITING AN EXCHANGE”, but you are angery that we discuss “THAT (the baiting) RATHER THAN [ADDRESSING] MY (your) REAL QUESTIONS?” 

I am confused. If the majority of what you say is bait and venom, we only ever have a few non-baiting/venom things about you to discuss. We will gladly discuss your ‘real questions’, but you rarely (and you aknowlaged this, yourself) give us any.

And I am impressed, supprised at, and proud of you for having sincre(I assume) “regret” (as you said) for putting forward this venom, and that you are embarresed to have it discussed. It shows maturity and selfawareness. I really appreciate you saying so and am prepared to look at what you say from now on with a little more seriousness and charity because of this. Please DON’T let me down. As for the other regulars on this site, you’ve addressed more venom in their direction than mine and I have a feeling you’ll need to work harder to win back their ears.

Just be reasonable: people like that and you seem to be someone who appreciates reason. Be positive when you DO see something you like or agree with. One thing I try to always practice is to remember that, when critiquing an article, to always point out a good point first BEFORE talking about what dosen’t make sense/seems off. Pretend it was written by a friend who asked you for some serious help and feedback. It ony helps them if you tell them what they did right, and if you can’t offer an example, either of what they did or what someone else did right, you won’t be listened to. And remember, pretend they are your FRIEND! Even if you disagree with you friend, you tell them that with as much courtasy as you are capable of mustering.

Angela,

Do you live under a bridge and does your nose moult?

Loud still thinks I’m many people. How do you know, if I am more than one person, that we are not a part of the EAC working together?
——
Also, a lot of people here don’t seem to be able to make up their minds—does anna lisa love me and pray for me or am I not even human?  Same with Corita—am I suffering and need to “turn to God”, or just a narcissist you should ignore, but can’t?
——
None of you are addressing the links I pasted about MT because you prefer to think I’m “vomiting” on her just to be a pain.
——
Loud—what if I can’t find anything to agree with—I can’t agree that Mother Teresa is worthy of my praise when there is all that documented evidence against her. Why “soften” the approach? As I said before, I’m not here to make you feel justified in your faith, I’m here to give reasonable doubts.
—-
Claire—you mentioned the desire to check into the reality of the story in Jennifer’s post, which is already suggested to be a “rumor” by default. Why not just write to Snopes and ask what they can find out? They don’t look at what they can check out unless it’s brought to their attention. You don’t need a Catholic one, which I tend to think would jump at the chance of invading a patient’s privacy.
——
Why do keep asking questions when you are trying to ban me?

Angela reminds me of the insufferable second-year law students I used to deal with who thought they had the world by the cajones because they’d studied a little Rhetoric and were convinced they were on the cusp of being highly-paid, big shot lawyers like they’d watched on TV.

Redbox—did you need a public defender? What were you arrested for?

Garyowen—If you want someone to get upset over insults, talk to anna lisa or Claire.

Angela - Well, don’t you just think you’re hilarious? You sound more just like those little peons every time you talk. They were law students, and I was in charge of them.

You’re right—I was stooping to your level.

Angela -
.
It’s interesting, but your words and actions have only reinforced by belief in the pro-life cause. When people like you show up to spew venom and hatred, I know I’m doing something right - otherwise you wouldn’t be so angry, nor would you be putting effort forth in attempting to cause doubt.
.
Also, I’m not writing under a pseudonym. JoAnna is my real name. My blog is here: http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com should you care to verify, and put a face to the name.
.
You said, “What you say about me doesn’t change who I am,” but if you were confident in that belief, you wouldn’t get so angry.

Brava, JoAnna—Should I visit your site?
——
You can say anything you want—“Stick and Stones” and all that. I’m angry at you invasion of my civil rights.
___
Like I said, I’m not here to change your mind—you would admit to being wrong about anything. I’m here to bring reasonable doubts and you keep wanting me to shut up.
——
Much less boring that praising Jennifer all the time, isn’t it?

Sorry—the keyboard sometimes sticks—I meant you wouldn’t admit to being wrong about anything.

If you want to visit my site, Angela, you certainly can.
.
I don’t want you to shut up. I welcome people who challenge my beliefs - it helps me learn to defend them better, and helps me grow in my faith as well. What I would like is for you to stop trolling, and for you to act civil and reasonable in your comments.
.
You’re wrong about not admitting to being wrong (lol!). Ten or so years ago I was a liberal Lutheran and pro-choice to boot. So, over the last few years I’ve had to admit I was wrong about quite a bit as I began learning the truth. :)

We tried.  We really did.  We tried to show her/him mercy.  We tried to show her reason.  We tried to show him how embarrassing it is to be a troll.  We’re just humans, and we didn’t die on a cross for this individual.  Imagine how HE feels.  One of the mystics wrote that obstinate sinners who would reject the price He paid on the cross, caused the most suffering for Jesus, as He agonized in the garden.

Angela - I’ll play along for a second. You’ve finally (finally!) explained why you are here. You have made it clear that it’s for political reasons, and that you believe we are invading your civil rights. Describe precisely, in two or three sentences, how we are invading your civil rights. I want precision, I don’t want vitriol, hyperbole, or your fabricated assumptions of other people’s intentions.

Also, without taking any pot shots, if I were some lone agnostic, sitting on the fence, and the internet brought me to the “Atheist” thread, I can honestly say that “Angela” was the best apologist for how *repugnant* Hitchins really is. Before the thread I was ambivalent because the man’s antics didn’t interest me.  Vitriol never attracted anyone.

As you point out, the “hypocrisy” argument is logically invalid.  Whether someone practices what they preach has no bearing on whether the statement preached is true or false.

But the problem (or I should say, impasse) in the abortion debate is not one of logic.  The pro-abortion position is not based upon logic, but upon emotional appeals for sympathy, even as the alleged example shows - the mother is scared, can’t afford a baby, is not ready, etc.  These arguments have nothing to do with whether abortion is murder.  They are emotional appeals to ignore the fact that it is murder, much like mercy killing (except that the mercy is supposed to be shown only to the mother and not the unborn child), and in the example, the mother’s emotions argue against her own reason (and purportedly win).  The problem is that it is very difficult to convince someone against their emotions precisely because emtions are not based upon reason, and it requires great discipline for your reason to rule your emotion.  In a culture that cultivates indulgence rather than discipline, it is near impossible.

c matt - Well said. It’s an argument of morality based on principles (“human life is sacred”) versus moral relativism that evades principles.

Angela:  No, I did not mention wanting to check the reality of the story, nor did I mention Snopes.

Rebox:  no, Angela didn’t finally tell us why she’s here.  She’s told us why she’s here many times before.  It’s just that her story keeps changing.  First, she told us she was here to agitate.  Then, she told us that she was one of many college students who post from the same computer in their dorm, with the goal of “taking us down”.  Today, she has a new reason, and says that she was lying about the dorm/computer thing.  Her credibility is nonexistent.  And now she’s flattering herself that she has raised doubts in us.  Well, that’s true, in that she has certainly caused anyone to doubt the validity of anything she has to say.

It warms my heart to see so many people trying to find a reason—any reason at all!- to be kind and give Angela a chance.  It really does.  :)

Oops posted too soon.  The problem of course, is that in our own lives most of us would never let someone this abusive stick around so long.  Ah, the internet.

Claire - Angela stated earlier in this comment section (twice) that she’s here for political reasons because she believes Catholics are “invading” her civil rights. I am asking for a concise clarification of this assertion. She gave a rather unsupported laundry list (anyone can do that), so I am hoping she is capable of explaining precisely how we are invading her civil rights, without resorting to vitriol, hyperbole, or fabricated assumptions of other people’s intentions.

The story sounds like a complete fiction. Has anyone here ever seen any prolife demonstrator behave like that outside an abortion clinic?

In addition, the “doctor” has violated doctor/patient confidentiality in that if the story were true, anyone who protested at that clinic would be able to identify the woman who allegedly had an abortion.

THANK YOU, Coast Ranger…I was thinking the same thing a little while ago!

I agree Redbox, that would be refreshing.

Angela, and everybody else here, can we stick to what is at least minimally related to this article?

Fulwiler, I liked the points you made. The woman, if she is being portrayed accuretly by the doctor’s story, was not truly pro life. Pro-life means to want to protect innocent human lives, but she was willing to comprimise on that just because she ‘wasn’t a slut’. Since when dose not being sexually promiscuent give you a free licence to take somebody’s life? They aren’t practically related. I am not a thief, can I kill my neighbor? I am not a con artist, can I kill legitamate some store clerk? No. Because being innocent of one thing dose not mean you can get away with commiting something else. To kill and innocent person is murder, simple as that. We cannot switch morality on and off just because it would make things a little easier.

To save time, I’ll past my last comment from Jennifer’s post on the Atheist Convention here:
——<start>
Instead of doing research that you can do yourselves if your knuckles are not too sore from scraping the ground, I’ll ask you a question:
—-
If Hitchens, et. al. are guilty of making false claims against Mother Teresa, her Missionaries of Charity hospices, and the Vatican/MT association with genocidal leaders of the time, why don’t they slap a Hitchens, et. al., who made these “false claims” with a libel and/or slander lawsuit? There ought to be big bucks involved in slandering the Catholic Church.  I can give you two ideas just now—
—-
1. If the Church, reps for the MOCs, etc. were to sue Hitchens’s estate and/or any other parties who made the documentaries and other public statements, it would draw unwanted (by the Vatican) attention to the issue.
—-
2. Europe has a policy of “loser pays” in civil suits—in other words the party who loses the case—whether the plaintiff or defendant—must pay not only the fine(s) imposed by the court, but also for the expenses of the party who took, or was forced to pay for legal representation and work to justify their case. The Vatican is already losing $$$$ because of their scandals of abuse and the Magdalene Laundries. It’s better business to ignore bad publicity when they can’t justify themselves anyway.
<end>
—-
If you want to make more replies on that thread, OK, by me, but I see no point in checking two lines when you are bringing up the same “jibe” on both.
——
Sorry, Claire—It was Rachel W. who mentioned Snopes. My bad.
——\
Corita—they accuse me of being confused, but will you make up your mind as to whether I should be loved and given a chance, or banned from this site and ignored as a troll?
—-
Claire again—Isn’t my recently stated purpose of bringing up reasonable doubts consistent with agitating” and “bringing you down?” I’m here to knock you off your high perch—so to speak. You are obviously feeling some of the stones.

Claire—even if you are sure of your faith and that I’m a liar, you obviously feel the need to tell others that you are not doubtful and they need not have any doubts over what I’m writing.

To take up Loud’s request to relate to the article, I’m guessing (I have no doubt that if I’m wrong some one here will tell me), that Jennifer is using the story as an example of how abortion is a form of “birth control.” If that kind of birth control involves the murder of an unborn fetus, then it can be implied that ANY kind of birth control—condoms and barrier methods, spermicides, the pill, tying tubes (male or female)—is an equal, if not worse, crime.
—-
This is to hold true for the Pope, Mother Teresa, the Vatican, and all “true” Catholics. No exceptions.
——
Already lots of comments insist the story of a pro-lifer who gets an abortion must be a fiction contrived by some agent who wants to degrade the pro-life/Catholic agenda.
—
BTW: If Frank Bruni actually did give some indication of the woman’s identity, he is in a helluva trouble for a breach of privacy charge. Should nay indication that his statements led to her being identified and harassed come to light, the sucker has really screwed himself, as did some of the people who commented on the link Jennifer provides.s
—-

“I’m guessing ... that Jennifer is using the story as an example of how abortion is a form of “birth control.””

Wow, Angela. Some people might say you weren’t even trying. But in truth, you really went out of your way to find a disingenuous, and frankly, screwball angle on that one. That might be the hardest I’ve seen you work all day.

Angela - Yet you still failed to provide a concise, straightforward answer to my question.

Fr. Barron of “Word on Fire” is an old hand a dealing with ubiquitous comments from folks who are (to put in mildly) hostile to the Faith and has something quite insightful to say about them:

“I have, over the years, playfully accused some of my atheist interlocutors of being “secret Herods.” The biblical Herod arrested John the Baptist but nevertheless took pleasure in listening to John preach from his prison cell. So, I’ve suggested, the atheists who come to my website and comment so acerbically and so frequently on my internet videos are, despite themselves, secretly seeking out the things of God.”

I’ll admit I’m getting behind on all the comments here—but I’ll try to reply to them, even if out of order.
—
JoAnna: your wrote:
You’re wrong about not admitting to being wrong (lol!). Ten or so years ago I was a liberal Lutheran and pro-choice to boot. So, over the last few years I’ve had to admit I was wrong about quite a bit as I began learning the truth. :)
——-
Wow! that’s quiet a transformation—what was it that convinced you you needed to change 180 degrees to your new faith and worldview? It must be a powerful thing, as being a liberal (I don’t know about Lutheran, but I guess that is a very strict sect of Christianity as well) and pro-choice advocate? “Liberal” and “pro-choice” are especially radical differences in your current professed moral positions. There is certainly nothing I can add to get any one to consider converting so drastically. I’m genuinely curious as to what made you “change.”
——-

Oh Bonnie, I took that to heart the last time you said it.  I’ve also seen individuals with dramatic cases of “Tourette Syndrome” (yelling obscenities) disrupt the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  There comes the point of tough love…

Loud—you wrote:
Angela, and everybody else here, can we stick to what is at least minimally related to this article?

Fulwiler, I liked the points you made. The woman, if she is being portrayed accuretly by the doctor’s story, was not truly pro life. Pro-life means to want to protect innocent human lives, but she was willing to comprimise on that just because she ‘wasn’t a slut’. Since when dose not being sexually promiscuent give you a free licence to take somebody’s life? They aren’t practically related. I am not a thief, can I kill my neighbor? I am not a con artist, can I kill legitamate some store clerk? No. Because being innocent of one thing dose not mean you can get away with commiting something else. To kill and innocent person is murder, simple as that. We cannot switch morality on and off just because it would make things a little easier. (sic)
——
First, I know the first line of my response was already established—are you trying to make that a “duh!!”? You replied out of context to the rest of my reply—a common fallacy that you should know better.
—-
Second, you make good responses to Jennifer’s article—Jennifer’s comments on the story, whether or not if it’s true, deserve scrutiny. Whatever my (Angela’s or whoever ‘we’ are) beliefs, it is Catholic doctrine that anyone responsible for an abortion has committed a murder in the eyes of the Church and is excommunicated by default.
—-
If I get your response to Jennifer correctly, then yes, it makes sense to say that if you value privacy and the right to make the choice of having an abortion, and yet protest against other persons’ rights to make the same choice—and vice versa—is hypocritical at best. So being an abortion protester does not make her any less of a murderer because she had an abortion “for convenience” herself.
——
My response is that Jennifer’s mild rebuke of the woman having an abortion for convenience is a not-so-subtle implication of the “virtue” of abstinence. If she was “true” to her faith, she wouldn’t have had to work the subterfuge of getting a private abortion from the doctor she was protesting. If she were a really true Catholic, she would not be involved in an extra-marital relationship in the first place.
—-
Well, was the woman “really a Catholic?” Does she “really believe” in pro-live and that pro-choice is “evil?” I don’t think Jennifer really pays attention to the comments on her posts, so I don’t think she will give an answer herself.
—-
But, I have to hound the people who are trying to deny my reasons for disgust of Mother Teresa and her legacy. I still haven’t heard anything gut ad hominem attacks against me and Hitchens.

Sorry, that was Redbox who put my first response out of context—It’s a late night.

“Corita—they accuse me of being confused, but will you make up your mind as to whether I should be loved and given a chance, or banned from this site and ignored as a troll?”
—-
I actually never advocated either of those things…  Except maybe ignoring.  And that only because (as I have found with children) you can’t always get them to do what is just and good, and they instead continue to insist they will have their way, so your choices are setting limits or bully them back, harder. I could bully you harder than I already have but I am trying to give up bullying for Lent.  The only limit available to set on a free, openly-accessible internet board like this one is ignoring. 
—
I notice that you still do not have the courage to be yourself.  That certainly elicits pity from me.  I certainly believe you should be loved. “Given a chance” is sort of nebulous…I wouldn’t let my drug addict ex take custody of our son, but certainly he should be encouraged in every way, and loved.  Just don’t trust him with the silver, or your heart.
And certainly, when someone *obviously* doesn’t give a crap about me or my thoughts except as some sort of thing to consume and feed their own ego then I will not go there, either.
—
I’ll make you a deal: I will talk about Mother Teresa if you go back and respond to the *actual* words said to you: admit to the deceitfulness that you have engaged in and be honest about yourself (other than your obvious “anger” at Catholicism for “violating your human rights”, and answer for my charge that your words and actions have displayed all the worst caricatures of the close-minded religious person.  It’s all on the other thread.  Multiple times.
If you can engage in an *actual* exchange instead of a continual thrashing about and living in your own stereotype-riddled mind, then you can pose questions that you are “honestly” curious about (as opposed to the other kind of curiosity?  I dunno.)
—
My guess is that you will not do any of the above.  But hey, as I always say, there is a distinct possibility I am wrong!

I think I’ll call it a day
—
It’s a day.

I guess abusing others is exhausting.

Angela - I put nothing you’ve said out of context. I’m merely waiting for you to respond to my inquiry. You have stated that you are here for political reasons because you believe Catholics are “invading” your civil rights. Please give a concise clarification of this assertion. Explain precisely, in two or three sentences, how we are invading your civil rights, without resorting to vitriol, hyperbole, or fabricated assumptions of other people’s intentions.

Corita—You can talk or not talk about MT all you want—I couldn’t care less—what makes you think I want a “deal” with you? Besides, MT is anna lisa’s idol.
——
On the Atheist Convention post, it looks like you’re about to add “Satanist” to the rest of the theories you have about me. anna lisa is suggesting I have Torette Syndrome. From people who believe in suffering, you sure are attributing a lot of afflictions to me. It’s very amusing.
—-
Redbox—what part of criminalizing abortion and contraception don’t you understand?
——

Angela - When you operate from the principle that human life is valuable, that the baby is a human being, then abortion is murder. You are right, there are many people - Catholic, Protestant, and secular - who are fighting to criminalize murder. Please explain and support your assertion that murder is acceptable. Explanations should be based in principles, and not in hyperbole or anecdotal evidence.

In what way are Catholics criminalizing contraception? You can throw that assertion around, but you have to back it up with facts that are not hyperbole, and not assumptions of other people’s motives. Please support with facts.

I see that the troll has continued to be fed.  Can stop any time now.

A sperm cell, and ovum, and a blastocyst and not human—that’s a basic bone of contention and I don’t expect you to concede. I still have the right to my own uterus and I will not have it violated because of what you believe. I’m not Catholics, I don’t care to be Catholic (obviously) and I reject your premise that your faith has authority over me.
—-
Deal with it.

Ben, they won’t stop—they enjoy hating me too much.

Angela - That embryo is human; it is not a fly, or a fish, or anything else. It is only a human. Science demonstrates this as fact. You are welcome to believe otherwise. However, we are fully allowed our argument that the conceived child is a human being, and we will lobby to change the law of the country to stop murder. You will note that I do not bring religion into this discussion. My point and principle is scientifically and logically based.

I also note that you evaded providing any supporting facts for your assertion that Catholics are trying to criminalize contraception.

Catholics are not against abortion because the Church is against it. The Church is against abortion because it is wrong.
—
When there is a conflict between a woman’s liberty in regard to her own body and an unborn child’s right to life, the right to life is prior to and more important than the woman’s right to liberty. The reason is that life comes before liberty. You can’t have liberty without life.
—
Both the right to life and the right to liberty are inherent, inalienable rights. But these two rights have this relationship to one another. This is based on reason, not religious faith.

Angela - my conversion story is here: http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-conversion-story.html
—
The ELCA’s contradictory stance on abortion also played a large part; I wrote about that here: http://catholicphoenix.com/2011/01/04/the-elca-and-abortion/
—
Redbox, excellent comments. Angela, sperm cells and ova are human cells—if you submit them for DNA analysis, that analysis will conclusively reveal that they do contain a full complement of human DNA. We do not believe that those cells, individually, are *human beings.* They are not human beings; they are cells that are part of the human body. However, when those two cells join, they *do* form a brand-new human being, of the species homo sapiens, with its own DNA and genetic structure that is unique from that of the two individual cells that made him/her. 
.
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
—
As Redbox asked, can you provide any scientific evidence to the contrary to prove your assertion that a newly-conceived human being is not, in fact, human?

Ben:  my point exactly.  Let’s not feed the hater who, ironically, accuses us of doing the hating.  I think it might be time for me to unsubscribe, as this discussion is becoming just as non-productive as some previous ones have…

@Angela:
“You can talk or not talk about MT all you want—I couldn’t care less—what makes you think I want a “deal” with you?”
—
What made me think that was how you *repeatedly asked* for people to respond to your *repeated posts* about Mother Teresa.  It kinda gave me the impression that it was something you cared about, so I thought maybe we could have an even exchange along the lines of what we care about.
—
Unfortunately, though I was correct that you would try to find any way possible to reject the opportunity. 
—
It is never too late to start being more authentic, though.  Somewhere else, if it is too embarrassing to start telling the truth here after everything that has happened.  But I urge you to do it.

What Jennifer’s post makes me think of it the stupid idea that being good is a simple matter.  For all its historical failings, religion makes the most sense to me when it acknowledges that the tendency to mingle selfish a—holery with our noble aspirations is sort of the “factory setting” of humanity. 

My husband, a deeply good person, is an atheist who longs to discover and carry out the Good.  The main source of his suffering (in my opinion) is the lack of any kind of narrative about forgiveness and mercy, with which to approach our inevitable failures at doing “the good that I long to do” as ST. Paul said, while acknowledging the constant inability to do so with consistency.
—
I can’t say that there are no non-religious ways of dealing with our massive failures and inadequacies in a way that encourages growth; certainly there are.  But the sentiment of Bruni’s piece plays right into the totally unexamined and nonrational thoughts we have about *other people’s* hypocrisy, which are also the ones that keep us from being honest about our own.

JoAnna - Not to be difficult, but I’m not asking Angela to provide proof otherwise. My intent was to respond to her statement that Catholics are trying to criminalize abortion. I’m pointing out that the principle behind opposition to abortion is that - scientifically and logically - conceived children are human beings and therefore purposeful termination of a pregnancy is murder. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, it is sensible to oppose murder, which many people of different religious (and non-religious!) backgrounds are doing via the legal system. If she operates by a different principle, so be it, but it’s not a principle based in scientific fact or simple logic.

Fair enough, Redbox, but I’d still be interested in if she has any proof to the contrary to support her views.

As I said, you are and I are not going to agree about it, so I won’t make any efforts that you could make yourself—you don’t trust me anyway.
—-
In any case when they start proposing laws to force men to an exam that would stick a ramrod in his “John-Thomas,” you can expect men to complain about their civil rights.
—-
By the way, Redbox you dope, it would be possible for the church to sue Hitchens’ estate and the organizations/people who are publicizing MT’s criminal legacy and stop the “staining” of her character.
—-
I’m very careful of how I express my opinions of you because I want to put as much vituperation in them as possible.

Angela - I said nothing about Mother Teresa. Not here. Not on any other discussion thread. Your attempt at diversion is juvenile and a failure. If you intend to engage me, then stick to the subject.

Redbox-See your comment on Mar 28 at 4:30 pm on the Global Atheist Convention Post. You did attack Hitchens in my response to anna lisa. Mother Teresa is her idol and you butt in.
...
I’ve been put to work….If I seem like some one else, you gave me the idea.

Angela/Barbara - You’re not even a good liar. I have no posts on that entry after March 27th, much less one of the sort you’re fabricating. If you’re going to make boldfaced lies, try some that aren’t so easy to verify. There is no point attempting to have a conversation with someone who flagrantly lies. Try not to perjure yourself in court some day.

Well, my bad for not copying the reply instead of just referring to it. Now I can’t find it either, so you can think what you like.
——
Mea Culpa for being addressing the wrong prick.

Angela/Barbara - So you lied, or you’re incompetent. Or both. I’m done interacting with you. You’re a liar who continues to prove you won’t stay on subject and answer straight questions. You had your chance. As you’re so fond of saying, “Deal with it.”

Redbox - I thought you might appreciate the following account of how Fr. George Rutler dealt with a certain (late, God have mercy on his soul) professional atheist who reportedly showed up drunk back in 2007 to a talk he (the “P.A.”) was giving at a club of which the good Father was a member.  The P.A. made the mistake of insulting Mother Teresa while Fr. Rutler (who had served as her order’s chaplain) was in attendance.  Here is what ensued:

FATHER RUTLER: I have met saints. You cannot explain the existence of saints without God. I was nine years chaplain with Mother Teresa. You have called her a !@#$%, a demagogue. She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Excuse me?

FATHER RUTLER: That’s why you drink. God has offered us happiness, all of us. And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference.

And secondly, I’m an officer with this club. And this conversation has been beneath the dignity of this club.

It was after the above exchange that the real fireworks started, according to witnesses. One blog obtained a written account of the incident by one eyewitness, which states the following:

“At the end of the event as he staggered, sweating and red faced, out of the room, he [Hitchens] advanced on Father Rutler in a threatening and physical manner, screaming that this beloved pastor and brilliant scholar whom he had never met was `a child molester and a lazy layabout who never did a day’s work in his life’. His behavior was so frightening that a bodyguard put himself between Hitchens and Father Rutler to protect him. Several of the event organizers then escorted Hitchens to the men’s room and when he emerged he continued his psychotic rant, repeating the same calumnious and baseless screed as before. It was then that Father Rutler, in the most charitable manner, told Hitchens [for the second time] that he will `either die a madman or a Roman Catholic’. … Unless he faces his alcoholism soon, I am betting on the ‘madman’ ending for him.” (4)

Evidently, Mr. Hitchens never met Father Rutler before their May 1 encounter, and did not know who he was. It happens that Father Rutler is a hero of 9-11. He holds a special place in the hearts of New York City’s police and firemen, for he was with them that day at Ground Zero. Before Father Mychal Judge was struck dead by a body falling from the burning towers, Father Rutler stood side-by-side with Father Judge, hearing confessions and giving the last rites to firemen en route to their deaths.

I wrote Frank Bruni a letter last week in response to his article.  Here is what I said:
“Your classmate should understand that the Church is human and divine. Divine teachings from Christ are safeguarded and taught through the ages by way of the Church. Human beings who make up the Church try to live out these teachings. The Church has always admitted that humans are created good but prone to sin. Therefore, It is not at all surprising to find out that they sin. What point exactly are you trying to make? No one ever said that a Catholic human is a sinless human. But at least Catholics have a moral standard for which to strive. Even the now-atheist doctor credits religion for fostering “community-mindedness and altruism,” i.e., a moral basis. The point that I believe you are making, hypocrisy, is evidence that hypocrites need more faith, not less.”

Redbox—another on bites the dust!

Bruni’s friend knew said: “Religion too often demands belief in physical absurdities and anachronistic traditions despite all scientific evidence and moral progress.”
—
Face it—the woman was free to choose, regardless of her religion and political views—and ended her pregnancy without changing her mind. Since Catholics/Christians are getting involved in politics and law, lets pass a law that would make Catholic/pro-life women who take contraceptives or get an abortion prosecuted for violating their faith. Excommunication is not enough—Catholics not only have special privileges above the law, the have the right to special laws to accommodate their religion.
——
If women choose to be Catholic, they should be subject to murder charges if they have an abortion. They should also be stoned, along with their partners, for sex outside of marriage.
——
Islam know how to deal with uppity women.

Angela/Barbara - One last interaction: Just because I won’t interact with you in discussion doesn’t mean I won’t continue to dismantle you for the rest of us, when it suits me. You’re not getting off that easily.

A reminder that Angela is now going as “Barbara”. She has been proven to lie as it suits her, refuse to answer questions in a straightforward manner, make disingenuous assumptions about other people’s arguments (and motives), and generally just be a complete troll who is trying to incite you into a fight.
——
Continuing to respond to her only “feeds the troll” and helps her in her goal to derail legitimate conversation about the post at hand.

I was thinking about this post in Mass tonight, as we heard of Peter’s denials of Jesus…and thinking of the times I have done the same thing in ways large and small!  Even *moments* after passionately declaring my intention to do better.

This is what Holy Week is for, Praise God!

@Bonnie- Thanks for that story!  I was at the Basilica tonight and saw a beautiful sculpture of Mother Teresa holding a child’s face in her hands…  I know she has a special place in her heart for Mr. Hitchens and others who malign her.  I would bet that she is praying for them even now!

@Corita I was thinking the same things (in relation to Peter) today after Mass.