Cdl. Arinze’s exhortation to fidelity at Georgetown last week brought forth in response this liberal cat-scratch:
Ed Ingebretsen, a professor of English at Georgetown and a priest in the American Catholic Church, said on Wednesday that Cardinal Arinze’s remarks were in line with Catholic doctrine, but nonetheless seemed out of place at the commencement ceremony.
“These things are exactly what he’s paid to say,” Professor Ingebretsen said. “[But] it’s a graduation; why he decided to do the pro-family thing no one seems to know.”
Professor Ingebretsen said he was compelled, as a writer, to post a short apology on the email subscription list “on behalf of Catholics” for Cardinal Arinze’s “insensitive remarks”, which he termed “un-Christian”.
Is it sensitive to insinuate that the Cardinal teaches Catholic doctrine because he’s paid to do so? (I didn’t think so either.)
Now, an exercise for the reader: which is in a better position to speak “on behalf of Catholics”: (a) a Cardinal of the Roman Church; or (b) the ex-Jesuit minister of some gay-oriented mini-sect? It’s a toughie, I know.