Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Annette John-Hall, to her immense credit, responded to my June 9 post, "Getting It Wrong at the Inquirer, Again":

Had I known I would be "put on blast" in your blog . . . I would have responded sooner. I'll chalk that up to a lesson learned about the blogosphere. [Hyperlink added.]

Perhaps I shouldn't have left the sentence hanging. I guess it would be easy to infer that I was connecting the gay priest problem to pedophilia, but that was not what I was doing at all.

The column was about denial on the part of the church in acknowledging homosexuals. The conservative doctrine of the Catholic church has made it very difficult for gay priests to be affirmed in the priesthood. Because of the exclusivity of its all-male power structure, a priest who is openly gay would create problems, whether he was celibate or not.

So, rather than deal with the issue, the church has chosen to ignore it. That was the problem to which I referred.

Again, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. At least I'll be reading your blog now. And I do appreciate the feedback.

I thank Ms. John-Hall for her response and based upon the clarification she presents here, I think it's clear we are in full accord on the subject at hand.

I further commend to Rittenhouse readers her column in today's Inquirer, "Geno's Can't Unmake the American Gumbo," though I believe she's being, if anything, far too kind, and kinder than I would be, to Joe Vento.

| HOME |