An Inexplicable Apology
Good writers are like painters. They paint captivating pictures with mere words — colorful pictures with only black ink. Case in point: In his column in Our Sunday Visitor (Nov. 11, 2001), J.F. Pisani tells us about a 50th wedding anniversary party he and his wife attended at a restaurant: “I sat at a table with two older couples and several elderly women, whom I assumed were aunts of the family. It seems that unmarried or widowed aunts populate these family events, like matriarchs in search of a royal court. They’re always offering advice and telling their nieces and nephews how to live….” In your mind’s eye, you see the picture — especially if you’ve been there, done that. That phrase, “like matriarchs in search of a royal court,” is masterful; it speaks a thousand snapshots, and more (and excuses his use of “whom” when it should be “who”).
Pisani continues: “I was reasonably sure that, before the night was over, I would have to ask an aunt or two to dance as part of my social responsibility — or as a corporal work of mercy.” Ah, just so.
Now, that’s good writing — evocative and delightfully amusing. And honest.
But then comes the December 9 Our Sunday Visitor with a scolding letter from Jacqueline Osowski: “Shame on you, J.F. Pisani, for the chauvinistic and uncharitable remarks you wrote….” Osowski is leveling an ad hominem attack here, for she doesn’t bother to attempt refuting anything Pisani said, but is only maligning his character.
You May Also Enjoy
The Christian doctrine of humility strikes the secular mind as paradoxical in its insistence that the better a person is the more humble a person should be.
Miller's exposé hails from the front lines of the war on babies; it is packed with heart-wrenching drama that follows pro-life battles on the ground and in the courtroom.
The days of trusting what's going on deep behind the scenes in chanceries and in the Roman curia are over. Transparency is what's needed, not blind trust in some broken bureaucracy.