Pardon my butting in here, but yours is the latest in a number of complaints. As I read the headline given, the part added (a very COMMON PRACTICE IN FR) is the part in parentheses. Perhaps square brackets should have been used. I suppose that could be done.
HOWEVER, the rest of the headline is EXACTLY what is in the article cited.
Now, if you carpers would kindly go to links provided and read both the article by Ms. Wandhwani (want to guess her religious affiliation?) and the reply by the University, then I think much of the internal controversy here would go away.
To me, the reply is so vehement that the implication that the reporter willfully and maliciously misquoted the professor, to the point of supplying detail where none was offered, particularly upon the point of 'sins of omission' gets considerable credence in my very skeptical mind. The world of modern theology is littered with creative thinkers who do not proceed from the core understanding that whatever is derived must concord with the fundamental data, which are the Holy Scriptures. They are, after all, the written Word of God for a professing Christian. I have not before heard of this professor but given the heat with which he rebuts the reporter and the instancy with which the reply appeared, I suggest he was, as he says, misquoted.
Of course, many can still continue to post having read a line or two of the article and ignoring the University's response, but if that is the case, then I'll move on to threads where adults are posting.
Don't we all just LIVE for the moment when the erudite punch in!!
-Pardon my butting in here, but yours is the latest in a number of complaints.--
I had no complaint.