But Tom IS wrong. His argument is circular and simplistic; fails to make critical distinctions; ignores church teaching about the formation of conscience; does not account for the 'sensus fidelium'. The church has always included persons who disagree with (dissent from) some aspects of church teaching; it it didn't, the church would have long since passed into history, a relic of the past. The attempt to define people out of the church is theologically and historically untenable; it is intellectually dishonest; it is cowardly; and it is futile.