: : Maybe, maybe not. Acquinas was a fallible man, not an omniscient god.
: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$That's one thing about Tom that I never understood. He wasn't fallible. Everything about him points to his being a very (and I normally hate using this word) holy man. If there were any peccadillos in his life, I'd like to know about them. Quite a guy.
That's "Thomas" to you. Sorry, but there is no such thing as an infallible person, but you're free to think what you want.
: : : Hey, wait a minute; are you mocking me? I thought one of the Liberal/Socialist/Communist tenets was respect for the beliefs of others? Do real Socialists mock the beliefs of others? Doesn't that imply one position being superior to another? Gee, and all this time I thought you guys...ahh, nevermind...I'm sure you have a rational explanation.
: : Nice try, but I wasn't mocking you. I let the words speak for themselves. Obviously, I disagree with them, but to disagree is not to mock. And I was serious about the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) providing an insight into your views, Frenchy. In my opinion, the CE is representative of a very conservative, patriarchical, arrogant, and bigoted institution, i.e., the Roman Catholic church, and frankly, Frenchy, I view you the same way. Of course, the Roman Catholic church also stands for good things, and it does good works, and you too have expressed dismay over the suffering of others, so I'm not throwing a blanket condemnation over you and the R.C. church. My criticism is that the good the R.C. does is not balanced well against the bad it does.
: : For the record, my wife is Catholic, and she shares my view of the R.C. church.
: $$$$$$$$$$$$What's that that I feel?
:It feels like somebody pulling my leg...let me see, maybe there's somebody under my computer table,...hmmmmmmm, nope. Oh, it's YOU!! Of course your not mocking me, you just go through the trouble of finding scraps of information taken out of context for the shear enjoyment of bringing edification to others...right. And then you can't even come to a conclusion about the history of the RCC, it's good, but it's bad too. C'mon, take a stand and defend it.
Frenchy, when I decide to mock you, you'll know it. And it's rare than anything in this world is all bad, even the RCC. The world's not a black and white place, you know. Just like there is good and bad in communism and capitalism, there is good and bad in the RCC. In my opinion, the RCC has plenty bad about it, chief among them male chauvanism, a view of the natural world as one to be exploited, not respected, a refusal to accept other religions as equally valid (as if one set of superstitions is better or worse than another), and that unfortunate twisted view of human sexuality which creates far more misery than it solves. I could go on, if you'd like.
: Sorry to hear about your wife's views. I imagine she's an NO. Well, there's no question, she has a lot of company.
What's a NO? Non-observer, I suppose. Indeed, while my wife is a believer, she does not attend church. She and I share a healthy distrust of organized religion, with its man-made rules and devotion to hierarchy and power. Count us out when it comes to obeying the word as delivered from on high.
: PS, nice play on 'pope', that was good. Kudos.
Make 'em laugh, make 'em laugh, make 'em laugh!