Some of you may be aware of my continuing disagreement with Carl Olson and Ignatius Press.
I believe I can sum up the entire argument in just a couple of sentences:
Baptists are neo-Catholics.
Baptists take some elements of Catholicism (worship of Jesus, necessity of prayer - at least the sinner's prayer, etc.) and combine it with ideas of their own to create neo-Catholicism. Frances Kissling is likewise a neo-Catholic. So is Jack Chick.
For that matter, so is Dan Brown. He holds to the importance of Jesus, holds up Mary Magdelene for veneration, etc. He's not just a neo-Gnostic, but a neo-Catholic.
Neo-Catholicism, neo-Gnosticism - in each case the new version is really identical to the original version when you look at it right, so we are justified in using the name as long as we append a "neo" to the front.
I used to run RCIA. During the initial interviews with candidates, I would frequently have Lutherans begin the process by telling me "Well there really isn't much difference between Catholics and Lutherans, and my wife/husband is Catholic, so I decided to join the Catholic Church."
I guess they were right.
Ignatius Press would certainly not be able to argue against the idea.