Reflections of a stormy petrel

I doubt whether you understand what Unitarian Universalist actually means. These groups started, indeed, as Socinian churches, still with some of the characteristics of a real Church - a doctrine, an ecclesiastical leadership, a notion of prayer and a definite image of God. (In point of fact, they started as English Presbyterian churches; it was the collapse of faith in the English and Anglo-American Presbyterian body, in the course of the eighteenth century, that gave rise to Unitarianism.) But in the course of three centuries, their remaining doctrine has been dissolved to the point where they are now little more than friendly societies for the entertainment of pseudo-religious attitudes. It is perfectly possible to be an Universalist and an atheist, or for that matter a Buddhist. So you are mistaken in suggesting that the association between Universalism and atheism is sensationalistic nonsense, and I regret to have to add that you do not seem familiar with the very Universalist theology - or rather, theory - that you take on yourself to defend. It seems to me that to nominate a Muslim would have been a lot less disruptive of real Catholic teaching. And if every Catholic on the blogosphere is angrily opposed to the appointment, does that not suggest to you that there may be good reasons to be? Bloggers do not, as a rule, agree on much, and dissent between Catholics - even conservative Catholics - is especially fierce and insistent. But all orthodox Catholics know that the older and richer so-called Catholic universities in the USA, Notre Dame, Boston College, and especially Georgetown, are notorious foci of dissidence and anti-Church activity. So is, in general, the American Jesuit order. Their appointments are suspect almost from the start. This one is so fantastically execrable as to really demand the reaction it received.