#97 said: "Pleasure is the point."

The mindset that Catholic dogma preaches wants us to be ashamed of orgasmic pleasure. They cannot accept that the free pursuit of pleasure is our right and that we don't have to answer to anybody for having an orgasm. This is why Rick Santroum thinks we should rethink the concept of the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. It also explains why Judge Scalia thinks there should be laws against masturbation. Both of them are Catholics. My guess is that Jesus masturbated on a regular basis and had circle jerks with the apostles.

The LW holds up the Catholic Church, with it's "solid . . . unchanging set of moral truths" (you're joking, right?), as a model of virtue and denigrates Dan's clear, principled, consistent moral position. The principle: all humans deserve respect. How should one act? Full, open, honest communication is required before engaging in a sexual act - to do anything less is to fail to give your partner the respect he/she deserves.

Dan's moral principle requires some work: it can be hard to determine what the right thing to do is. The LW is probably drawn to the Catholic Church because of it's promise of a "solid . . . unchanging set of moral truths" - so he/she doesn't actually have to use his/her brain and figure out what to do. He/she would rather go with a principle that says "Do what god tells you to do" - a principle that is subject to interpretation by whoever you choose to see as an authority on what god says; a principle that allows you to be manipulated and used by those "authorities".

LW, you have the power to determine what is right and what is wrong. You're giving that power to priests & the pope. Why would you do that? Because THEY told you that's what god wants you to do? Why do you trust them?

Scientology has this kind of thing as penance--you're supposed to "strike a blow" against the cult's enemies.

Nice to know the Catholics are STILL plagiarising from other religions. I WONDERED why Pope Ratzi brought back indulgences.

So a convert to Catholicism gives Dan Savage a moderately obnoxious message and he not only dignifies it with a response but does so in a way that's far worse.

Yes, much of what Mr. Savage recommends Savage Love could be considered spiritually empty, but a lot of it isn't. I'm a Catholic and I read SL understanding that I'm not going to agree with Mr. Savage's take on everything. Guess what? Same thing goes for Dear Abby.

But using some mild jerkiness as an excuse to vilify all Catholic priests as pedophiles and hypocrites? You know better, Dan.

Re: converts - RCIA is a little stricter and deeper than baptism/communion/confirmation, which is all done and gone by the time adolescence rolls around, so it's no surprise to anyone that converts are more religious (or at least prone to religiosity) than someone baptized as an infant.

The attraction to Catholicism (at least for most converts) is the ethical and moral nature of the faith. It does take some effort to ignore the egregiously bad and morally unjustified behavior of the Church, its priests and holy orders, not to mention the wholesale abandonment of social justice in favor of standing firm with the political right, but SBS has obviously managed it.

The irony is that Dan also takes a fairly tough ethical and moral stand on issues of sex and relationships. It a normative set of principles, which is both internally consistent and highly pragmatic, and the Church would be hard put to do as well.