> I strongly doubt Oh indeed; I definitely agree that his reasoning and motivation are merely an inch deep, and we must scrupulously avoid, when playing "insid

> I strongly doubt Oh indeed; I definitely agree that his reasoning and motivation are merely an inch deep, and we must scrupulously avoid, when playing "inside baseball" with the Catholic Church, avoid going beyond the words which come out of his lips; we must avoid ascribing any deeper meanings or searching for enduring symbolism which has broader implications. The mainstream media is certainly the best, and perhaps only true interpreter of soundbites such as this one, and of course the most important link to a name such as "Leo" is a mostly obscure dude who lived 100 years ago. After all, the Catholic Church is only 2,000 years old and only comprises like 1.3 billion human beings. She is extremely superficial, and we mostly forget frivolous, silly things like the patterns of stars and the track of our local star, because those are now the realm of hard science, and nothing to do with mysticism or symbology, which again, must be discounted when we pay attention to the words coming out of his mouth and being relayed by the experts in mainstream media. Thank you for dispelling my ridiculous speculation: I was going to take it even further by exploring the Leo-"Lion" imagery and how powerful that can be, but of course we're examining a man and not a feline!