Finn: You misunderstood. I, if you will read the initial post again, am trying to save the American Catholic Church. Not an easy task, as you can well imagine, but one that, I am sure Spendius will agree, is the most important undertaking of this era. (The image the word undertaking creates is unfortunate.)
You sureness is out of place Joe. I don't think saving the ACC is the most important undertaking of this era or any other era. I have already postulated that the RC Church may well have written the ACC off as past the point of no return. The image you say is unfortunate is so for you because it provides a glimpse of the sort of things uppermost in your mind when you come back to us and seems to be the main principle of your opposition to the Church as if you are one of the chosen few who deplores such things. It's a sort of claim to pseudo-sainthood. Like you are special in this respect and have a constant felt need to be informing us all of the fact. All it informs me of is that you are obsessed with the matter.
Spendius has many times implied, he never says outright, (then again he never say anything outright) that without the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and I'm sure he includes the American and perhaps even the Irish contingents in his thoughts, our civilization is doomed to fall into a Darwinian maelstrom from which there is no escape, a reality that will be nothing but days of hideous sin and nights of perdition.
I say plenty of things outright. Too outright for some. Have you any examples of my implying something by not saying them outright? I certainly don't think there is any "doom" or "fall" in the prospect of embracing the Darwinian position. Simply a momentous change in which there is no sin. There can only be misdemeanours and felonies. Hence Government will either allow Christian sexual ethics not covered by present law to become defunct or provide legal restraints in their place.
The USSC will be eventually called upon to decide how much female flesh may be displayed in public places, bare bosoms having been in fashion in numerous societies, as also naked bottoms, and having nothing but their own misogyny to guide them. And that after a few years of disputation during which the lookers will have been pushing their boat out. I'm not necessarily against sin and perdition. I simply ask you what you think it will result in and whether you approve of it and the progress towards it.
In discussing various sects and heresies, such as Christians living in Islamic states, Nestorians amidst the Persians and Jews in Byzantine, Oswald Spengler wrote-
.... they did not and could not belong to it, and consequently were thrown back upon their own jurisdictions. If by reason of their numbers or their missionary spirit they became a threat to the continuance of the identity of the state and creed-community, persecution became a national duty.
As with Bradley Manning now. And Mr Assange. Both of whom have many supporters. The fact that our persecutions are more humane is neither here nor there. The persecution itself is the decisive fact. Not that JTT will agree that our persecutions are more humane no doubt citing figures of deaths, maimings and disablements on a numerical scale far surpassing what those primitive tribes could manage.
Our capacity to understand why the number of adherents or the missionary spirit of such minorities was conceived as a threat 2 or 3 thousand years ago is extremely limited and any condemnation of those persecutions needs must condemn all persecutions or admit to subjectivity and to the tacit assumption that they are addressing people of low intelligence.
What you seem to be asking for beneath a veil of cheap sarcasm is that women are free to get out of line.
Stock up on tin hats, ammo and corned beef is my advice.