The purpose of this site is plain from the Introduction and the Main Menu, both of which you have already seen. It should also be plain that I am not arguing only for doctrine that is exculively Catholic. Much Catholic doctrine is common also other Christians and Monotheistic religions. But if you don't want doctrine, philosophy and theology are at your service here.

If you would like to know about the author, click here.

If my site does not meet your needs, you might want to try those listed in "Credits and Links". But please do email me about the problem so that I can serve you better.

I welcome suggestions for this site and especially for links to sites, with which I may agree or disagree. I try to enable the reader to see both sides of the arguments, to get the whole picture and make carefully educated decisions. Constructive criticism of my site in any of its aspects is especially welcome.

My guidelines are these:

1) I will not reinvent the wheel. I would rather link to an intelligent treatment of a subject than to come up with my own hasty essay. You are served far, far better this way. This is why there are so many links to G.K. Chesterton, Catholic Answers, Epictetus, etc. I would like to include more Protestant links, but others are fine also. And certainly, my respected opponents in debate on these eternal matters are much better than I at arguing their views.

2) I will be brief and consise. What you search for is at your fingertips! Therefore, I refuse to draw up long lists of resources of Christianity or good philosophy on the internet. I will not create in my menus a link to a site just because it is good, or even because it is good apologetics. The reader would be overburdened and leave.

3) This page should be beautiful yet without bells or whistles. It must not be more crowded, and I will not use animations or movies. Do not ask me to distract you from what really matters, which is your intellectual battle for the truth of things!

4) My language is more inclusive than so-called "inclusive language," and until I hear a good argument to the contrary, I shall continue. It is more inclusive in one way because while the sentence "your enemy is still your brother" refers to members of either sex, "your enemy is your sibling" refers the reader away from my page for its awkwardness. Further, "inclusive language" non-inclusively condemns the standard old way of speaking, claiming that it excludes women, which is false and baseless.

Peace be with you, and God bless.
Please tell me your wisdom.
-Luke Wadel

© Copyright 1997, Luke Wadel. Written permission of the author is required for copying, electronically or otherwise.