My appearance last week as a Roman Catholic priest on George Lopez’s Lopez Tonight has raised some ire among The Catholic Leauge. Link to the article is HERE. I had no intention of offending anyone, but it seems I just might have.
I’d like to respond as Geoffrey Chaucer did, asking those who were offended by the Canterbury Tales to blame his rough manner and lack of education, for his intentions were not immoral, while asking those who found something redeemable in the tales to give credit to Christ.
We're at war with Libya, Japan's a radiated wasteland and THIS is the top story?
I read the article and I understand the argument made by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, that the original Pole Dancing for Jesus was not about Catholics. But Donohue says a few things in the span of a short paragraph that I feel the need to address.
“This isn’t the first time George Lopez has gone after the Catholic clergy—last September he maligned gay priests on two occasions for the sexual abuse of minors.”
Why does Donohue use the phrase “gay priests”? I’m sure he’s not implying that only gay abuse is wrong. But is he then implying that there were priests proven to be gay who should NOT be maligned? Is Donohue coming out in defense of gay priests?
That would be news, because this organization for religious and civil rights has “no results” in a search for the word “gay.” Personally, I don’t think anybody needs to be maligned but could maligned be construed to mean de-frocked, excommunicated, or denied sacraments?
Have gay priests been more maligned by George Lopez or the Vatican? What are your views on that?
