Saturday, June 12, 2010

Antonio M. Enrique Comments in the Pilot on the Pakaluk Piece

Pilot readers are accustomed to reading differing views on many complex social issues. Our Catholic laity is well educated and can make up their minds on whether they agree or disagree with a particular opinion.

If the Catholic laity are already educated, we certainly don't need you then do we.

What kind of poppycock is this?

Look around you.  The Catholic laity have been educated by apostates. 

Why can't you just be a man and say I failed to edit the piece properly?

Say, "Pakaluk's piece articulated the teachings of the Church.  Period.  And, kudos to him.     However, the part about homosexual boogeymen carrying around pornography in their pockets that they're going to whip out at any given moment just goes to show you how unprepared we are to handle the subject matter.  Mea culpa."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am still reeling from reading the SH Academy comments. There are so many confused ideas and so much vulgarity and hostility that it is hard to know where to start. No, actually, Kinsey isn't taken seriously among academics, even among gay advocates, because his methods and gross generalizations so undermine his so-called findings.

In the case of the venom-spitting comments, it feels like arguing with the Goths or the Vandals -- only they're inside the city already. To those students -- even if you are too young to understand the rage you should have towards those teachers who did not give you the formation you deserve to see reality and, well, become a saint, you should be mightily annoyed that you cannot even construct a reasonable argument or express yourself without sounding like some beer-drenched guy in the bleachers at Fenway (at best).
It's just very sad. No one believes in evil anymore (Kinsey certainly couldn't be considered evil, just, what, passionate about his work?), so the only example one can give is of the Holocaust to begin to discuss why "expressing one's opinion" is not an automatic right in every context. Would you really print the rantings of a skinhead?
But I was actually writing to express my dismay at Antonio Enrique's cowardly comments and say ditto on the editing. As much as I imagine Mr. Pakaluk thought he was doing the right thing, the piece felt like it was written at a redlight, especially considering Mr. Pakaluk's credentials. The comment about pornography was likely trying to compress a much larger point about documented, celebrated promiscuity in the (particularly male)gay community, but it didn't work, and, ultimately, undermined his argument. I applaud Carol and others for pointing out what keeps getting hidden. The problem was not having a child of gay parents at a Catholic school, but having parents who have asked that the school not teach its faith. I mean, we have all just heard the gospel this Sunday. The woman with the "bad reputation" comes to Jesus, and he loves her. I am that woman. We are all that woman, and we are told that we are always always welcome with loving arms, but we are also told that it is necessary to repent and change our ways, as street-corner preacher as those words sound these days. The gospel, and others like it, do not show Jesus changing his message to make the woman feel better, and they do not show her asking him to condone her behavior. That would not be loving because it would not bring her closer to her Creator.