As I thought
Nov. 15th, 2008 06:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meirwen_1988And the response took even less time than I anticipated. Of course, the Monseigneur is now being vilified. It is the crazy making.
Response from Monseigneur Martin T. Laughlin
AP story for those less clerically inclined
In other observations, for what it's worth, my two favorite columns to read in the paper are really not ... on the same page position-wise. Sort of wondered why I got the same feeling reading each of them, though the "thinks" were so often so different.
Then I got it. I think what they both have in common is the tone implies they genuinely like human beings, and assume that a person deserves respect, dignity, and freedom from fear. They think that can be achieved in sometimes oppositional ways, but they never seem to assume that simply not thinking the same way they do is a reason to devalue a person. Given the string of columnists our paper had before Parker, that is refreshing. And Pitts? Well, he writes beautifully (Parker isn't quite as good yet, but she's getting there), and, well, he has the courage to call out liberals and African-Americans when he believes they are behaving in ways that undermine their causes, their dignity as people, or disrespect either the history of the nation or the value of opposing positions.
Oh, yes, it is before 7 on a Saturday and I am up--thank you for noticing. Actually, that's when most of my heavy mental lifting occurs. The rest of the day is just playing it out.
Have a great Saturday, y'all.
Response from Monseigneur Martin T. Laughlin
AP story for those less clerically inclined
In other observations, for what it's worth, my two favorite columns to read in the paper are really not ... on the same page position-wise. Sort of wondered why I got the same feeling reading each of them, though the "thinks" were so often so different.
Then I got it. I think what they both have in common is the tone implies they genuinely like human beings, and assume that a person deserves respect, dignity, and freedom from fear. They think that can be achieved in sometimes oppositional ways, but they never seem to assume that simply not thinking the same way they do is a reason to devalue a person. Given the string of columnists our paper had before Parker, that is refreshing. And Pitts? Well, he writes beautifully (Parker isn't quite as good yet, but she's getting there), and, well, he has the courage to call out liberals and African-Americans when he believes they are behaving in ways that undermine their causes, their dignity as people, or disrespect either the history of the nation or the value of opposing positions.
Oh, yes, it is before 7 on a Saturday and I am up--thank you for noticing. Actually, that's when most of my heavy mental lifting occurs. The rest of the day is just playing it out.
Have a great Saturday, y'all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-15 12:55 pm (UTC)What a perfect explanation. Oh, hooray for thinking people.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-17 03:02 pm (UTC)Well, it's pretty much what I expected, and you too, I think.
Sad thing is, more non-Catholics will hear about the first article than these, and will use it to support negative views on the Church.
And some Catholics will agree with the first priest as well, and possibly not read the follow up...