But it often seems to me that nonbelievers attribute a false kind of blind faith to all believers, as though the giving over of free will involves a turning off of our brains. It's not as though I stop thinking about what I believe about morality, it's instead that I think about it and read carefully about what the Church teaches, and then I examine any areas of discordance and see if I can resolve them in a way that still maintains compatibility. The Church is pretty clear on which teachings are nonnegotiable (like abortion) and which ones involve gray areas where individual conscience might lead people to varying conclusions (like war and economic political policy.) For me, the one area that's still difficult is homosexuality, but as a Catholic, I'm not forced to take a strong stand one way or the other. For me, it is a private matter because I honestly don't know how God judges this behavior and I only know that it's not MY place to judge. It doesn't affect me personally although I do accept the rest of the Church's teachings on sexuality and I can see how homosexuality doesn't fit with what we believe about God's purpose in giving us the gift of sexuality. I don't know how to resolve that, and I'm satisfied with leaving it as a question mark because I don't see the Church's stance leading to a gay bashing mentality (quite the opposite- I see the Church having a pastoral sense of love toward gay people even if she won't condone the act.)

If Benedict or the next pope, or the next, were to start speaking like the anti-Christ, then I'd leave the Church (and I'm always free to do so- I'm not concerned that the Church is going to resume the Inquisition and come after heretics.) This is why those of us who are politically conservative find it odd that liberals seem to have such a problem with religious authority but not the authority of the state; of the two, IMO it's clearly the latter that is a problem in the West today. Most liberals who favor large government apparently feel that the checks and balances and Constitutional nature of our government will prevent the authority of the state from exceeding its bounds, but even now we have a government which can confiscate our private property and jail us if we refuse to comply. Believe me, I'm not an anarchist and I'm not actually advocating that we should refuse to pay all taxes, I'm just pointing out that that very real authority is already in effect with the power of government and it's that which I'm most wary of. I don't see religious leaders having anything like that power, because I can always choose to opt out at any time that lines are crossed.

It might surprise you that I was one of those kids too- but apparently you and I resolved the questions in different ways. Just one example; in my family, religious traditions were mainly just that, traditions- so when it came time for me to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, when Catholic kids enter into the Church as adults, I gave my mother fits because I told her I had to think about it and wasn't sure I was ready. Ultimately I prayed over it and felt that I was in fact ready to make a commitment (it was then that I thought through what I outlined above- my conviction that this commitment is much like a marriage, and my realization that the only reasons that I might leave the Church would relate to a possible breach on the part of the Church itself, and thus my responsibility to maintain the commitment would be voided) but I was prepared to tell my parents that I wouldn't go through with it if I hadn't made peace with it.

I can't reconcile belief in democratic principles and voluntarily submitting one's free will and judgment to an authoritarian rule. This seems particularly contradictory because it's not a temporary or ocnditional arrangement. This submission lasts through the lifetime of the Pope and on through a succession of Popes, no matter who they are.

I can understnd the 'collective wisdom; part, but, again, only on a temporary and conditional basis., not as a permanent and no-matter-what arrangement.

I am not questioning that a Pope can have tremedous postive influence, as in your Poland example. Again, that's precisely my point/ What happened in Poland pertained to particular circumstnces – a conditional role. Accepting a Pope as the ultimate and permanenet authority means remaining submissive even if another Pope in Poland or the same Pope in different circumstances would have acted in a contrary manner..

Belief in the principles of the Declaration of Indepence and sibmitting to a monarchial authority for spiritual matters are just irreconcilable to me.

Don't be surprised that we disagree.
I drove my 1st grade teacher crazy, because two verses of a 12 verse folk song seemed to be contraidictory to me. Free will. Personal judgment. Evem in first grade.

Peace.

The key word to resolving the whole dilemma. You don't want to voluntarily give over any authority to him or the hierarchy of the Church, and that's fine (freedom, democracy, etc.) Others do choose to do so after examining the whole of the theology and finding that sometimes the collective wisdom of great thinkers through the ages, whom we believe were influenced by the Holy Spirit, exceeds the ability of our own minds to reason things out- particularly when we understand that our individual minds can so easily rationalize things instead of applying objective principles of morality.

When the Pope inserts himself into the politics of nations, I'm particularly concened, even when I agree with him about some ideas.
What, at heart, is the difference between the Pope's working to widen the influence of the Catholic Church,, and a Muslim Mullah wanting to strengthen the influence of his own faith?

There's no difference in the goals there, but there can be a world of difference in the means applied to reach the goals. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to change hearts and minds, as opposed to a top down political approach that woudl impose the will of the faith's leaders on the populace.

A perfect example of this being done properly is Pope JPII in Poland. He never involved himself directly in the politics of the Eastern Bloc, but he steadfastly supported the Polish people in preserving their faith, religious freedom, and cultural values. That naturally led to a grassroots revolt against the power of the communist state. Do you see that being problematic at all?

I think sermons, and theological thought can be the source of insight, and guidance whether you bleieve in the dogma of a particular religion or not. As an advisor, or a philosopher, I can udnerstand why people would listen to him. But as a Pope, he is a spiritual monarch, and I can't reconcile that with my democratic soul. I don't see how anyone can, actually.

When the Pope inserts himself into the politics of nations, I'm particularly concened, even when I agree with him about some ideas.
What, at heart, is the difference between the Pope's working to widen the influence of the Catholic Church,, and a Muslim Mullah wanting to strengthen the influence of his own faith?