On the whole the discussion of the RC invitation and reaction to it has been both lively and polite, exactly what we want. However ...
This blog is intended for open and sometimes spirited discussion of the issues before it. We are not only willing, but desirous of publishing opinions we do not agree with here, where they can be considered in a rational fashion. We reject very few of the comments submitted to us. I was disappointed on coming to my machine to find two comments from separate individuals that I could not make myself publish.
One was a strictly ad hominem attack on a writer, appearing to me (though I hope I'm wrong) to be an attempt to avoid considering his thoughts by sidetracking the discussion into his own merits. The arguments presented on this blog were presented for the sake of their content, and their content is the discussion at hand. The writer could have been asked quietly and nonjudgmentally to explain what led to a change of opinion and that might have been very productive, but the comment received did not do that.
The other just buffaloed me. It purported to oppose the concept of seven sacraments, but listed a number of practices never refered to as such, while failing to mention any of the 'lesser five'. I'm not at all sure what the writer was getting at and determined that it would add no more than confusion to the discussion.
Both writers are more than welcome to rephrase their comments. Theirs are viewpoints that are not mine, and therefore, for exactly that reason, I do want to hear them.