"No Paul we do not have to defend this claptrap article. Nor do we have to for all the others that will come down our pipeline in the future. I sent it to you so you might help me separate the chaffe from grain. It got my attention that's why I sent it to you. BTW 1 claptrap article out of 40,000 for the month do not make for a bad harvest. And believe it or not I do scan through them all everyday, several times a day"
The fact of the matter is, "It is too late." It is past history. It appeared. You read it. You sent it to me. I was buried in work. I finally read it. Told you that it is bad. So you took it down. So what? It's too late. One article out of 40,000 is a fallacious argument since the following of the one author is more than 1. I flunked Math, but I did not flunk logic. Statistics are invalid in the spiritual world where one act of virtue is enough and one immoral act is too much. They are also invalid in a world where 400,000,000 humans have smartphones. In a world with 12 or 13 time zones. You cannot use the statistics argument with me. I work for an enterprise that works around the clock, in all these time zones, has about 500 contractors and over 1,000 clients, and therefore can, at best, react to the interlocutions that flood the central bureau every hour of every day. I resent having to be re-active to the world in the Kingdom of God, instead of pro-active.
If that sounds unrealistic, out of touch, quaint, other-worldly, old school, or whatever other adjective you want to use, fine. I will remind you that it is the stone that makes the waves and the shore, no matter how expansive, can only feel the effects of the stone's act. I refuse to be nothing but the shore.
It's admirable that you scan everything that comes across every day, but I am not impressed and here's why. Like Don Quixote, your jousting against how many hundreds of thousands of windmills? You are not more effective than the farmer who makes his rounds five times every day and closes the barn after the horse has been stolen. You are nothing but a small protrusion from the shore.
"BTW, Deacon Kendra who posted this is a very conservative Catholic. And is one of the more respected ones. I am of the opinion he posted it to stimulate conversation not to convert to the subject person's position."
I will tell you that in the tradition of the Church, communicating things just to stimulate conversation is forbidden. Especially when you are stimulating conversation in the public at large, a largely ill informed public, I might add. This is called the "Systematic Doubt." See, there's even a name for it. So, don't think you've made any headway on me with that one. In this case, a deacon floating the position for homosexual marriage to millions of smartphone users is sure to cause the twisting and mangling of the weaker consciences in the audience. Not to mention the glee of those who hate the Catholic church to begin with.
You're going to have to do better than to tell me that our only option is to be re-active. I am not going on prevent defense in matters of religion. If that is the life of the 21st century, then I'm glad that my time is measured and my fuse is short. And if, indeed, we are reduced to nursing our product after it has been bitten, I staunchly and irretrievably refuse to be a part of life in that environment. I am a missionary, not a nurse; I am a teacher, not a cop.