religious discussion continued

I took some time, incidently during Holy Week, to read religion. It all started with a little volume given to me, Patrick Madrid’s _Surprised by Truth_ (see my previous post). That book illustrated why a few converts were dissatisfied with their Protestantism, but the draw of the Roman Church was not made so clear. In the interest of better understanding, I searched the library. I found _The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism_ to be helpful, but I stopped reading at page 200. Too many words in a book I that became advised misrepresented the Church. Still, the meaning of the sacramentals, the gestures, the genuflections, the saints, was made clearly and warmly. For a girl who was fuzzy on the basics of Angelus bells and rosary beads, such gentle "start at the beginning" information was a treasure discovered. Then, I finished Jon Sweeney’s _Almost Catholic_. While I was initially beguiled by his tender treatment of the requisite topics, I found his conclusion not only lame, but somewhat offensive. He loves the Catholic Church, not because of its compelling truth, but because it directs him to his "true self." It’s all about him, not about Him. I was hoping to learn that one could "respect the Catholic Church" without joining Her. Instead, I better understand why conservative Catholics protest that such a regard is impossible. Impossible, but, to me, there is no alternative. I must continue to respect both the Catholics–and the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Pentacostals...
More later.