That's not the message I object to, and I trust you're not patronizing me. Let me try to make it clearer.
Mr. Kreeft describes BC as a top Catholic university as a rhetorical tool. He identifies the school as having a Catholic identity, and as being a top university. But he is implicitly critical of the school, and finds something lacking in his overwhelmingly Catholic students: a personal love for Jesus Christ.
"Implicity" critical of the school? Sorry, I don't see it. Mr Kreeft is critical of the students and not BC. He is critical of the students' prior 12 years of "Catholic" education. He is not critical of Boston College. I am critical of the College, not the students.
He is saying that entities with "Catholic" identities, and individual Catholics ourselves, need to focus more on the central object of our fatih: Jesus Christ.
Boston College has given awards to pro abortion speakers for two years in a row. Do you think Mr. Kreeft would have the nerve to make a public statement critical of the school's policy? Being a strong pro life Catholic yourself, I am sure you would take issue with that policy, so why shouldn't Mr. Kreeft?
It's easy (and safer for ones career) to blame the students, but what kind of message are students getting when they go to schools such as BC or SFU and witness this kind of new tolerance/academic autonomy from Catholic institutions? Is it any wonder that Catholics procure abortion in the same percentage as the population at large? What kind of message is "Catholic" Boston College giving to Catholic young people?
"I trust you're not patronizing me..."
No, but I am kidding with you. I do that with folks I think I might like. If you would prefer that I refrain from that with you, I'll respect your wishes. I'll go back to teasing Michelle. ;-)
"Mr Kreeft is critical of the students and not BC. He is critical of the students' prior 12 years of 'Catholic' education. He is not critical of Boston College. I am critical of the College, not the students."
Well, I can see your interpretation, but I think mine works a bit better. He mentions that BC is a top Catholic university. He mentions that the students have had 12 years of Catholic education. He mentions that these are overwhelmingly Catholic students. And then he dumps on the whole picture. It seems a more natural reading to assume that he is building up rhetorically to make his point, and the rhetorical point includes mentioning BC as a top Catholic university.
"Boston College has given awards to pro abortion speakers for two years in a row. Do you think Mr. Kreeft would have the nerve to make a public statement critical of the school's policy? Being a strong pro life Catholic yourself, I am sure you would take issue with that policy, so why shouldn't Mr. Kreeft?"
I don't know whether or not Mr. Kreeft has made such a statement. I don't know why he might have made, or might have failed to make such a statement. It certainly wouldn't have pertained to this article, so why would I look for it here?
"It's easy (and safer for ones career) to blame the students,..."
Frankly, I don't see him as blaming the student. My interpretation is that he finds it lamentable. My interpretation is that whatever blame he lays implicitly, he lays at the feet of the "12 years of Catholic education" and at the "top Catholic university". To me, that seems to be part of the point, that this "inexcusable scandal", this "unmitigated disaster" occur at a "top Catholic university" where "Eighty percent of [his] students are Catholics who have had 12 years of catechism."
It doesn't make sense to me to separate the implication from the first rhetorical device that applies to the others in the series.
As to your final question, bringing abortion back into the picture, again, that isn't what this article is about. I don't know what Mr. Kreeft has written about abortion or about Boston College.
I sense that maybe you don't like Mr. Kreeft, or perhaps his work in general. Am I in error?
sitetest