White crayon on white paper...

You see there is something to be thankful for after all...Terry is back!

I keep asking you why you hate the unborn.

Are you asking in reference to Luke 14:26? "If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
Otherwise, I'll point you back to Canon 1526 §1 which says, "The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation."
this Terry person, who is obviously not interested in anything but trying to twist other people's arguments into the strangest shapes imaginable.

"This Terry person" that you see is a twist of your imagination. Be untwisted, love your neighbor as yourself.

Gail,
I think Jimmy Akin and SDG are using the same approach with Terry that the Vatican uses with Congregations that sprint away from the Church teachings.
Instead of just shutting them down, seeming uncharitable in the process, they allow them to die off from their own iniquity.
This also allows the door to remain open to the possibility of repentance. From my perspective it would seem quite rare that would actually happen with heretical religious let alone Terry the Troll.

I am amazed at the amount of time and attention people are giving this Terry person, who is obviously not interested in anything but trying to twist other people's arguments into the strangest shapes imaginable. I suppose it can be good for one's argument skills to practice... but as for Terry, I remind everyone that even the Devil can quote scripture.
Personally, I think it's incredibly sad that a religious sister can convince herself that escorting women to an abortion clinic is a Christian thing to do. Over the centuries, religious congregations have had to be reformed or closed many times. Today we don't seem to shut them down, we just let them die out. I'm not sure that that is a better solution.

>And we are all called to be "escorts", in support of one another, as
>we cooperate in the accomplishment of God's plan, wherein, in regard
>to evil, God "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be
>done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good."
Here, the nun is escorting people to do evil - the slaughter of the unborn.
I keep asking you why you hate the unborn. And you give me empty platitudes of "love" which you do not show to the unborn.

I had begun to think you enjoyed playing with others. At the moment, it seems you want to play by (or with) yourself. Cheers.

I always enjoy playing with others! Like bouncing a ball back and forth, you passed to me a Humpty Dumpty quote in a question, and I passed back to you your question answered in a Humpty Dumpty quote. Perhaps it's you who doesn't enjoy playing with others. Indeed, at the moment, it seems you want to play by (or with) yourself. Cheers!

"I accommodate every intersubjective consideration ever invented -- and a good many that haven't been invented just yet."

Then they aren't intersubjective. Which seems to put you in Humpty Dumpty's camp. I'm sorry. I had begun to think you enjoyed playing with others. At the moment, it seems you want to play by (or with) yourself. Cheers.

I wasn't aware that even Sr. Donna had suggested that any action of hers qualified as "peacekeeping."

As "any" can mean "some" ot "one or more", it would seem apparent from Sr. Donna's words that she suggests at least some or one or more of her actions qualify as "peacekeeping". Similarly, I only said that it may refer to any action of Sr. Donna, as in some, or one or more, but not necessarily every.
Does your rulebook oblige you to accommodate any intersubjective considerations whatsoever for your lexicographal choices, or do you follow the semantic nihilism of Humpty Dumpty?

I accommodate every intersubjective consideration ever invented -- and a good many that haven't been invented just yet.
"Who'd have thought that?" seems to be a question about what other people would think, and seems to suggest that most people would be surprised to learn the truth of the proposition in question

I was asking from a supposed view of Sr. Donna, as if perhaps she didn't already know (as perhaps suggested by the statement that the Congregation leaders had informed her). Perhaps she was surprised.

"I said I was using my lexicon, wherein I may find "peacekeeping: Sr. Donna's actions". That may refer to any action of Sr. Donna, whether rejected by the Congregation or not."

I wasn't aware that even Sr. Donna had suggested that any action of hers qualified as "peacekeeping." Does your rulebook oblige you to accommodate any intersubjective considerations whatsoever for your lexicographal choices, or do you follow the semantic nihilism of Humpty Dumpty? If so, I think our dialogue ends here.

"By "Who'd have thought that? Perhaps that's why they had to inform her," I'm asking a number of things, including the question of whether Sr. Donna already knew whatever it was that the Congregation was reportedly informing her; whether the Congregation thought she already knew; whether the Congregation's statement was intending to imply that she didn't know, etc."

To what end would you have asked those questions? "Who'd have thought that?" seems to be a question about what other people would think, and seems to suggest that most people would be surprised to learn the truth of the proposition in question (i.e., that "peacekeeping" was "contrary to her vocation," etc.). Given how you have lately defined "peacekeeping" to include any action of Sr. Donna's, this supposition would seem nonsensical (why would anyone be surprised to learn that some wholly unspecified action of a particular nun was contrary to her vocation?).

To what actions could they possibly be referring?

Perhaps more or less than I might intuit.
why are you so sure that the actions rejected by the Congregation can be characterized as "peacekeeping" even by Sr. Donna's lexicon?

I said I was using my lexicon, wherein I may find "peacekeeping: Sr. Donna's actions". That may refer to any action of Sr. Donna, whether rejected by the Congregation or not. And by "In that 'peacekeeping' is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize 'her actions'", I mean: to the extent that "peacekeeping" is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize "her actions", whether rejected by the Congregation or not. If in fact she does not use "peacekeeping" to refer to all the actions that the Congregation claims to reject, then those actions as "peacekeeping" simply fall under my own lexicon and not hers.
Why do you find the Congregation's statement so seemingly counter-intuitive ("Who'd have thought that? Perhaps that's why they had to inform her")?

By "Who'd have thought that? Perhaps that's why they had to inform her," I'm asking a number of things, including the question of whether Sr. Donna already knew whatever it was that the Congregation was reportedly informing her; whether the Congregation thought she already knew; whether the Congregation's statement was intending to imply that she didn't know, etc.
The proposition that you neither perceived nor intended the perception of any disconnect or dissonance between "peacekeeping" and "violation of her profession as a Dominican religious" seems improbable enough that I doubt you will baldly claim it.

If it happens that perceived dissonance between "peacekeeping" and "violation of her profession as a Dominican religious" heightens the question I asked in any way, so be it. Likewise, if it happens to appear that I intended to point to an apparent disconnect, paradox, or however it's seen to be, so be it.

"In that "peacekeeping" is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize "her actions", yes. However, in that my continuously revising dictionary now includes "peacekeeping: Sr. Donna's actions", it is neither favorable nor unfavorable, but simply an "in other words". Meanwhile, the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation was not exactly clear what "her actions" are that are "in violation"."

In that case, why are you so sure that the actions rejected by the Congregation can be characterized as "peacekeeping" even by Sr. Donna's lexicon? Why do you find the Congregation's statement so seemingly counter-intuitive ("Who'd have thought that? Perhaps that's why they had to inform her")? Why is your tone so conclusive ("So there you have it")?
The proposition that you neither perceived nor intended the perception of any disconnect or dissonance between "peacekeeping" and "violation of her profession as a Dominican religious" seems improbable enough that I doubt you will baldly claim it.

"Meanwhile, the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation was not exactly clear what "her actions" are that are "in violation"."
What, O, what could it be?... To what actions could they possibly be referring? It's all such a muddle!

Terry, do you consider this characterization of the congregation leaders' reported correction to be in keeping with a preference to give a favorable interpretation of others' statements?

In that "peacekeeping" is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize "her actions", yes. However, in that my continuously revising dictionary now includes "peacekeeping: Sr. Donna's actions", it is neither favorable nor unfavorable, but simply an "in other words". Meanwhile, the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation was not exactly clear what "her actions" are that are "in violation".

"peacekeeping"
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! -Isa %:20
"We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion."
It appears that Sr. Donna's scandalous actions spoke louder than her deceitful words...
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Not to encourage Terry in any way I would like to state that Sr. Quinn sounded very contrite and sincere in her statement (that was me being sarcastic).
It always goes to show you, if you do not repent - you will resent.

"So there you have it... Congregation leaders informed her that 'peacekeeping' is a 'violation of her profession as a Dominican religious'. Who'd have thought that? Perhaps that's why they had to inform her."

Terry, do you consider this characterization of the congregation leaders' reported correction to be in keeping with a preference to give a favorable interpretation of others' statements?

You know, "Terry", it might do you some good to give some thought as to...

Tim, like I said, "All of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love between God and his creature can develop. It is the motive for everything. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter between God and his creature."
Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation
11/2/09
Several months ago, the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sister Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions. After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately.
Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation. We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion.

Sr. Donna's response as reported in the news:
"I want to be clear that this is my decision," she said in a statement Tuesday, saying she would suspend her role as a peacekeeper outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale. "Respect for women's moral agency is of critical importance to me, and I look forward to continuing to dialogue with our congregation on these matters as a way of informing my actions as well as educating the community."

Quinn said the order's announcement only served to stir more controversy. A private meeting to discuss her position had been set for later this month, she said.

"I am disappointed that the process agreed upon was circumvented," she said. "As a peacekeeper, my goal is to enable women to enter a reproductive health clinic in dignity and without fear of being physically assaulted. ... I am very worried that the publicity around my presence will lead to violations of every woman's right to privacy and expose them to further violence."

"I take this opportunity to urge those demonstrating against women who are patients at the Hinsdale Clinic, whom I have seen emotionally as well as physically threaten women, to cease those activities," she said. "I would never have had to serve as a peacekeeper had not they created a war against women."

So there you have it... Congregation leaders informed her that "peacekeeping" is a "violation of her profession as a Dominican religious". Who'd have thought that? Perhaps that's why they had to inform her.

You know, "Terry", it might do you some good to give some thought as to why you are continually drawn to post here (under your various aliases), even though JA.O readers find your antagonistic, sophistic or just plain nonsensical posts tiresome, if not offensive.
This desire to continually play the spoiler is as old and pathetic as Satan. But maybe that's the point.

Bill912,
St. Thomas was writing of God's PERMISSIVE Will, not his ACTIVE will. This post is about evil ACTIONS.

Are not rash judgment and calumny evil actions?
As to Sr. Quinn's actions, she reportedly volunteered as an "escort". What does that mean apart from Sr. Quinn submitting to God's permissive will? If to "escort" means to spend time with someone, where is the "evil action"? If "escort" means to guide someone as they struggle with a choice, where's the "evil action" with that? Women can be arriving at the clinic for many reasons, including things other than abortion. Even in regard to abortions, women may continue to consider their choices after arrival at the clinic with every step of the way until it's too late. Should the women be abandoned while there's still time to change their minds?
The Church teaches, "Everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way." It must be possible to interpret Sr. Quinn's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way, for Jesus said, "Everything is possible to one who has faith."

St. Thomas was writing of God's PERMISSIVE Will, not his ACTIVE will. This post is about evil ACTIONS. Terry made my point: he continues to roll in the midden, and desperately needs our prayers.

So using your logic, those who "escorted" black people to KKK lynchings were just doing God's will... I vehemently disagree with you.

BobCatholic, perhaps you "vehemently disagree" with your own interpretation of what you think I said. If so, you disagree with yourself. What happens to a house divided against itself? The word "escort" can have many meanings. Which meaning have you chosen? May the Good Shepherd escort you in your choice.
I smell the smoke of Satan. Of course, God DOES will that evil NOT be done. To attribute the above to God is the sin of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit; i.e., attributing to God what is actually the action or will of Satan. Terry desperately needs our prayers... The more he posts such blasphemies...

Bill912, what are you smoking? The quote that God "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good," is from Summa Theologiae, la, q. xix, a. 9, ad 3m of St. Thomas, of which Pope Leo XIII said, "This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil."
May I remind you that the Church teaches that he becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.
Thank you, Bill.

"...God 'neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done'..."
I smell the smoke of Satan. Of course, God DOES will that evil NOT be done. To attribute the above to God is the sin of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit; i.e., attributing to God what is actually the action or will of Satan.
Terry desperately needs our prayers. I also think that, for the sake of his soul, he needs to be banned from posting here, atleast for some time. Posting here has become an occasion of sin for him. The more he posts such blasphemies, the more he will become inured to the midden in which he is rolling, the more hardened the shell of habitual evil with which he is surrounding himself will become.

>And we are all called to be "escorts", in support of one another, as we cooperate in the accomplishment of God's plan, wherein, in regard to evil, God "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good."
So using your logic, those who "escorted" black people to KKK lynchings were just doing God's will. Right. Right. Gotcha.
I vehemently disagree with you. You will have a lot to explain about why you hate the unborn.

* y-a-a-a-w-w-w-n... *

This is the more modern and accurate translation of the Scriptural soundbite...

Just so much intellectual clutter to wade through.

Opinions galore. It's truly exquisite! Thank you for your contribution! The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in this apparently weak and "cluttered" reality, as the foundation of all things. By the very fact of their having been created, all things are endowed with their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order which man must respect. In Christ, all things, including "intellectual clutter" aka "flowers of the mind", hold together. All is created from the Word and all is called to serve the Word. All of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love between God and his creature can develop. It is the motive for everything. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter between God and his creature.
There's a great and wonderful danger in seeing things as only "intellectual clutter". There is always a need for "exquisivi". We must always look for the Word within the words. By entering into the Word of God, we escape the limits of our experience and enter into the reality that is truly universal. We go beyond our limitations. We go towards the depths, in the true grandeur of the only truth, the great truth of God.
To "sum up in Christ all things", "to see God in all things and all things in God" is to live in a spirit of constant praise. In a world in which hope is all too often absent, the rediscovery of God's goodness, both in His creation and in people, restores purpose to life and leads to thanksgiving. Let us rejoice in God's eternal wisdom which "reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly." Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.

We know that in everything God works for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
This is the more modern and accurate translation of the Scriptural soundbite that Terry seems to think supports his/her rather bizarre understandings.

Sorry if I sounded like I was picking on you especially, Lucien. Just frustrated that Jimmy's fine blog seems to draw what seems like a higher-than-average number of keyboard space cadets with too much time on their hands.
Just so much intellectual clutter to wade through.

Understood Tim J.,
I really just wanted to see how far Terry could be pushed in this instance; if he might actually answer a question directly.
I wonder how much he actually adheres to in what he types or if it is all an act of absurdity. I think more of the latter being probable.
I did say a Memorare for his intention and will drop any further communications with him. How do we warn others to constantly disregard him? So that confusion is kept to a minimum or is that no longer important?

Please quit feeding it.
It will apparently pick up anything on the nursery floor and put it in its mouth.
It's my guess that it has choked on something and this has restricted the flow of oxygen to its brain.
Let it be.

Lucien,
So since the Church loves God, the sinfulness of those inside of the Church makes no difference? That is your premise.

Your "no difference" premise is yours, not mine. The Church teaches that God permits evil in order to draw forth "some greater good", not "make no difference". Of course, difference is relative, so depending upon the basis for comparison, there may or may not be a difference.
Terry, do you believe the molesting priests did a 'good' for the Church?

Evil as molestation may be, as all things work for good, so too molestation works for good. But if you were to specify with clarity a particular act, and particularly as necessary in terms of intentions, facts, circumstances, etc., and ask if such act is moral to will, you might get a different answer. Please be aware that phrases like "Sister Quinn's choice at the abortion clinic" and words like "escort" mean different things to different people, and with respect to such, I may not respond with a "yes" or "no" to suit your belief that I know what you're talking about.

I recommend we starve the troll.

"All things work for good for those who love God", and as the Church loves God, that would mean good for the Church."
So since the Church loves God, the sinfulness of those inside of the Church makes no difference? That is your premise.
Terry, do you believe the molesting priests did a 'good' for the Church? Do you believe the janitor who killed the priest in NJ did a 'good' for the Church and showed his love for her?
How far are you willing to extend this premise? Are there no logical limits?

Lucien, I said nothing that was limited to Sr. Quinn's "presence" at the clinc. Whatever Sr. Quinn might doing at the clinic or in the news or wherever or whatever, whether it's greeting people with a smile or scowl, praying, spreading the Gospel, sweeping floors, pushing people into a blazing furnace, chopping heads off of babies, saying the Rosary or whatever, it does not change what I said. "All things work for good for those who love God", and as the Church loves God, that would mean good for the Church.

Since trolling is not banned on Jimmyakin.org in Da Rulz section. How do you keep someone's constant comments, intentionally meant to confuse, under containment?

Lucien, you can't make Terry play the game by your rules. That's not how he rolls.

Terry,
Here is the question again: Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her (her being the Church not Sr. Quinn) faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Is Sr. Quinn doing the Catholic Church any good? Not is Sr. Quinn doing a good act by her presence at the clinic.
A pretty simple question I think but since you can't seem to grasp the concept I will state it twice in this post and again ask for a yes or no answer:
Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her (yet again the 'her' here referring to the Church) faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Yes or no please.

Lucien, I don't hate decisions and I gave you an answer to your question that's as clear as Scripture. You asked if Sr. Quinn is doing "any good by her choice at the abortion clinic." I answered: Whatever Sr. Quinn might be doing, "We know that all things work for good for those who love God." (Romans 8:28) Therefore, whatever she's doing, whatever her choice, whatever it is... I don't even have to know what it is... it works for good. It's part of God's plan.

Terry,
I put forward the thesis that your philosophy is something to this effect, "God hates decisions" and that you are in the same boat, relatively speaking, as those who misunderstand God's will; as in those who hate in the name of God. In other words you are deluding yourself.
From your musings here at Jimmyakin.org one gathers the impression that you hold being open enough to never make a decision is the highest point of Christianity.
Answer this question in a yes or no fashion:
Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Yes or no?
Don't point to your earlier obfuscated comments, answer the question.

Terry, we are NOT ‘called to be escorts’ in order to demonstrate our solidarity with the abortion industry.

Tom Simon, I said "in support of one another as we cooperate in the accomplishment of God's plan." If you believe God's plan is to "demonstrate solidarity with the abortion industry," then that's what you believe.
You will go to your grave stating, "God hates decisions" believing you have done God's will

Lucien, God hates decisions??? I've not heard that one before. Done God's will??? Oh my, who believes that!
And you still never answered a question.

Like I said, I point to the answer. I don't make you look.

"Lord, you willingly subjected yourself to mockery and scorn. May we never lose heart when faced with the contempt of this world which ridicules obedience to your will."
Jesus actually made declarative statements too, that is why He was mocked. You are mocked because you have been found out to be a troll.
There are many so-called Christians that believe it is okay to protest at funerals of homosexuals holding signs stating, "God hates f@gs". They too Terry will go to their grave believing they have done God's will (it is in Scripture).
You will go to your grave stating, "God hates decisions" believing you have done God's will ("Judge not or you will be judged"). If the Church interpreted that verse so perversely she would never make Dogmas and the Church would have vaporized by now.
Some philosophy to live by, one that keeps you from being able to answer a question; or one that just wastes other people's time at comboxes.
And you still never answered a question.

Terry, we are NOT ‘called to be escorts’ in order to demonstrate our solidarity with the abortion industry. Your attempts to fudge the issue aren’t fooling anybody.

you support the escorts who make sure they are slaughtered in cold blood. Some definition of love.

Bob,
God is love, and he supports, upholds, sustains the escorts -- all of them and at every moment, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. And we are all called to be "escorts", in support of one another, as we cooperate in the accomplishment of God's plan, wherein, in regard to evil, God "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good."
Lord, you willingly subjected yourself to mockery and scorn. May we never lose heart when faced with the contempt of this world which ridicules obedience to your will.

>I'm commanded to love
Except when it comes to unborn children. For them, you support the escorts who make sure they are slaughtered in cold blood.
Some definition of love.
Remember "Whatever you do to the least of my people"? nobody is more least than the unborn....

Dearest Lucien,
Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?

Whatever Sr. Quinn might be doing, "We know that all things work for good for those who love God." (Romans 8:28)
You still never answered the question Terry, nor have I seen you answer any question.

I point to the answer. I don't make you look.

"I'm commanded to love, and remaining open to the truth is an eminent exercise of love."
You still never answered the question Terry, nor have I seen you answer any question. Let me state a direct yes or no question: Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Being open to Jesus, who is the Truth, is an exercise of love. His Church teaches doctrines regarding faith and morals, she does so knowing that there are absolute truths in these two areas, to be open to her teachings - that is an exercise in love.
Being unable to form an opinion so that you can actually answer a question is an exercise in futility.

Lucien,
'being open to the truth' is another way of saying you have not formed an opinion in this case (or any case that I have witnessed). So since you haven't reached, or choose not to convey, your opinion in this matter why push for others to be open? Open exactly to what?

I'm commanded to love, and remaining open to the truth is an eminent exercise of love.
You should either make the case for people to agree that Sr. Quinn is wrong, in this particular situation, or right.

If it's your opinion that I should make a case, then that's your opinion and thank you for sharing it. But I ask you, who needs to make a case? Per Canon 1526 §1, "The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation."
Sr. Quinn should know the difference between right and wrong, the Church is very clear.

The Church is very clear, "The education of the conscience is a lifelong task... it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." So it can happen in regard to anyone, whether it's you, me, Sr. Quinn or anyone.
She knows shielding women who are intent upon killing their young is not the best utilization of her vocation.

What Sr. Quinn or anyone is or is not doing, what she knows or doesn't know, is open to question. And whatever she chooses to do is her choice. If it's evil, God permits evil because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it. So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The insults that get thrown at you are quite well deserved but I think you know and appreciate that fact.

The Most High is kind to the ungrateful and wicked, and yet they spat on Jesus. I'm content with insults. "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us."
I doubt if trolling really accomplishes any of that.

As the Holy Father has said, "By diverging from predominant ideologies, this path often exposes one to misunderstanding and marginalization... But it is also a path, which by forming mentalities open to the truth, becomes an eminent exercise of love."

Terry,
Again you danced around the question, 'being open to the truth' is another way of saying you have not formed an opinion in this case (or any case that I have witnessed).
So since you haven't reached, or choose not to convey, your opinion in this matter why push for others to be open?
Open exactly to what?
You should either make the case for people to agree that Sr. Quinn is wrong, in this particular situation, or right.
Any other position is a waste of time and typing; but when you get right down to it, it is quite typical of a troll.
Sr. Quinn should know the difference between right and wrong, the Church is very clear. She knows shielding women who are intent upon killing their young is not the best utilization of her vocation.
The insults that get thrown at you are quite well deserved but I think you know and appreciate that fact. Hopefully, this reminds you of your childhood to some degree and keeps you warm at night but I doubt if trolling really accomplishes any of that.
I for one, miss Oneil the Viking Heretic and long for the day when he can slay and free us from Terry the Troll.

Exorcism
period

You twist and pervert Scripture to support this open heretic.
Dominic.
+++