The Second Wave Begins to Crash
If you just woke up, here's something to kill your appetite.
I've known some Salesians here in the Boston area for a while now. One of them is the head of our Office of Youth Ministry, who I find to be cold and odd at the same time. The others that I know of run a "youth center" in East Boston, and they're all "odd" in that perfect-hair-and-show-tunes sort of way.
Notice in the stories the preponderance of teenage boys as victims of these slimebags. Pedophilia, you say? Not.
5 Comments:
My father (a Unitarian and a retired computer executive) is on one of the committees of the United Way that certify organization that receive aid from UW. One of the organizations his committee is responsible for is the Salesian Boys' Home in East Boston. He has spoken highly of it, except for its unwillingness to accept some of the financial guidelines the UW likes. Should he also be looking closely at the conduct of the Salesians themselves with the boys?
In general, the Salesians are very careful about who they let into the order. Many of them had extremely positive influences on the kids (I am a product of a Salesian high school). When I was there (in the 70s), I don't remember seeing anything amiss either in the Salesian residence or in the classrooms. This case in Australia seems to be an outlier.
I'm a little stumped. Being from Boston, I happen to know the "head of the Office of Youth Ministry" personally, and professionally. And while I disagree with you assessment of him as cold and odd, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. What I question, however, is the prudence in identifying him so specifically. Now, anyone can identify him, and their opinion, tainted. Your opinion thus becomes almost slanderous, and at the very least, very uncharitable.
Fletch, I'm a bit stumped as to your reaction. The whole idea of a blog is to put your opinion out there, isn't it? And I do think the guy's cold -- and odd! In reference to a news story on the Salesian order, I don't find slander in what I clearly identified as an opinion. If you feel that stating opinion is tantamount to slander, doesn't that call into question everything that's opinion-based, like the op-ed page in the Globe, or Michael Moore's documentaries? I, for one, don't rely on other people's opinions to form prudential judgements about people.
As to being uncharitable -- sorry, but failure to call a "spade" a "spade" is what I think got us into this mess in the first place. There are too many people -- priests first and foremost -- who smell a skunk and describe it as "differently-scented."
Again, I'm not questioning your right to an opinion, or your right to say it wherever and whenever you like.
I question your judgement in identifying a/any particular man, and essentially insulting him. If I understand you correctly, you are identifying the East Boston Salesians as "odd", meaning homosexual. That would be calling a spade a spade in my opinion. If you want to call them out for their abberrant behavior, I'm fine with that.
You didn't use the quotes to describe the director of OYM as odd. I'm assuming there's a difference between odd and "odd". If there is a difference, I don't see the value in voicing that opinion. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it is petty name calling, and I would expect more from you or anyone else.
If you mean to say he is "odd" like the other Salesians you mentioned, and you are calling him out(no pun intended),again, I'm ok w/ you calling a spade a spade.
The only other thing to mention is more of a question. As the reader,it seems as though your painting Salesians with a broad brush based on your local interactions. Do you think that's fair?
Post a Comment
<< Home