Irresponsibly cite that event? Whether or not you agree with Fr. Drinan, the event says something about him. In light of other positions he holds or has held, they all add together to speak of his character. I never said he was a horrible priest for not listening to his superiors, I simply stated that is what I knew of him. When you make headlines for something, you have to be prepared to have that follow you, for better or worse. I repeat that my original point had nothing to do with his running for office. My perspective of speaking is not from the American legal system but from a Catholic moral perspective of my own understanding. The Supreme Court's acceptance of his position does nothing as far as influence the Catholicity of his position. He speaks of a legal position on a moral subject. It does bleed into the moral arena and we cannot act as if it does not. I am not attempting to make this a Bush vs Clinton debate. I'm not a fan of Bush or the "pro-life" republicans. I think both sides of the debate are broken and that there are additions way of handling this issue that neither side has explored. By being critical of a Democrat does not mean I am defending a Republican. The Democratic platform is a solid platform that is close from being right there with Catholic thought. The Republican platform is lacking quite a bit in many areas. In short, I never said President Bush or the Republican majority was a good thing for the abortion issue. I maintain that he complicated this issue. Instead of the two of us discussing ways that we can help influence society toward being the dignity of the human person, from conception forward, we're going back and forth on whether accepting a legal definition has moral implications. People in secular society could see Fr. Drinan's stance on partial-birth abortions and say "the Catholic Church can't be that against it- one of their priests seems fine with it". Is that fair on Fr. Drinan? No, but that is part of the ballgame. A statement made by a public representative of the Church impacts the Church's mission- either in positive or negative ways. Fr. Dave Dwyer's appearance on the Daily Show a couple of weeks ago had no moral statement attached to it, but it gave visible witness that the Church is part of the world and can interact with it on levels that can engage our young "hyper-secular" culture. True, someone living next to the Vatican gates could still avoid Catholicism, albeit the stronger the Catholic identity of a place, the more difficult it is to avoid it. I was not implying that my kids would not be safe at Georgetown. If my kids wanted a solid Catholic education, I wouldn't give them an application to Georgetown. I do believe in my future child's ability to choose their own college so I wouldn't stop them from going to Georgetown- of course not. I am not sure if there is an university in this country that it would be "bad" for my kids to attend. If my kids came to me and said "Hey Dad, I want to go to a Catholic university!", I would not suggest Georgetown as a first choice. I am curious though, once I have a law degree and after I either attend a Catholic university or work at one, what would be different? Would my opinions have full credibility? Do I have to focus on any particular aspect of law? Would working in the development office of a Catholic university count? How about as a janitor? I do understand your point about the law degree or experience with a Catholic university; keep in mind that someone can have informed opinions without fitting into such molds. Personally, I do intend to continue my education through law and involvement with a Catholic university, but if nothing else, I should use this website as long as I'm paying for it. :-) Thanks Mike for this debate thus far. It is nice to know that people do read the website and such discussions help to advance thought, even if it is only on this small of a stage.