"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
Please, keep the kidding. I love kidding. I'm a kidder myself, in case I haven't mentioned it to you. I've read somewhere that God doesn't like saints with sour dispostions so I try to keep smiling. :-)
He mentions that BC is a top Catholic university.
That's my point. I have no quarrel with anyone saying that Boston is a top university. It's that little qualilfier "Catholic" to which I object in reference to some schools. Schools that promote abortion indirectly or directly, with faculty or by awarding pro abortion speakers are not fully Catholic in my estimation. Some may wish to take issue with that statement, but I stand by it.
As to your final question, bringing abortion back into the picture, again, that isn't what this article is about.
True, but the discussion has diverted slightly into what is and what is not a good Catholic school. Despite it's merits, I don't believe Boston College is thoroughly Catholic.
I sense that maybe you don't like Mr. Kreeft, or perhaps his work in general. Am I in error?
Actually, I have no idea who he is. As I wrote to JMJ earlier, it was today's Gospel that put me in a combative mode, I was looking for anybody, you were around, so I though I'd pick a fight. You're good at checking your facts.
How's that for kidding?