Catholic priorities
The Guardian continues its commitment to publish commentary from excitingly reactionary clerics and fans of clerics with the vomitings-forth of George Neumayr. His comment is an exceptionally lazy and vulgar diatribe.
Notre Dame’s now-infamous president, Father John Jenkins, is very fond of politically correct patter…This year Jenkins has rolled out his broken wheelbarrow of inane PC clichés to justify honouring the most pro-abortion American president ever.
And so on; it’s all like that.
A brilliant commenter posted a list of bishops taken from a Dallas Morning News list of Catholic bishops who protected sexually abusing priests. There are 19 bishops on the list, out of 61 who signed a petition protesting Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama. She suggested a different headline for Neumayr’s blurt:
George Neumayr and paedophile apologists are outraged by the existence of a liberal African-American president.
A hit, a palpable hit.
The comment was great. If you keep reading through the comments it seems she had a subsequent comment removed by a moderator. Judging by a response to it, it must have pertained to paedophilia. I wonder what she wrote and whether it was fair to remove it?
Or perhaps the removed comment itself was unfair, like the suggested headline. They seem to be outraged not by the Existence of His self, but by his opinions and record on abortion.
Still, it feeds the self-righteousness to imply ‘they’ would rather someone killed him than merely disagreed with him.
ChrisPer, doesn’t it go without saying that if the comment was unfair then it was fair to remove it? That’s part of what I was saying, anyway.
I wonder if they could have removed it simply for legal reasons? UK libel law being what it is – and the Guardian having been where Simon Singh met the BCA. Maybe they’re extra edgy right now.
ChrisPer: Why was the headline any more unfair than “Obama is the most pro-Abortion president EVAR.” It is also accurate, no…these bishops DID protect the priests, no?