Thread by @DawnofMercy

As a @CatholicUniv @CUACanonLaw student, I have questions for @CatholicPres:

1) Since the icon was at a chapel entrance, why do you call the theft mere "bullying"? Why not call it what it is--blasphemy?
2) Is the theft being investigated as a possible hate crime? (It should be.)

https://twitter.com/CatholicUniv/status/1463571846176116742

I'm also puzzled, @CatholicPres, at your writing, "our Law School has always seen the figure as Jesus," by which you apparently mean that the figure can't represent _both_ Jesus _and_ George Floyd (i.e., inviting us to see Jesus in Floyd). (2 of 4)

Before saying "our Law School has always seen the figure as Jesus," did you consult @CathULaw's Regina Jefferson or Shani Butts? At the icon's blessing, they seemed to interpret it within the artist's intended dual symbolism--both Jesus and Floyd.
law.edu/news-and-event… (3 of 4)

Here's the plaque that hung by the icon for 8 months before the media storm. @CatholicPres, did you think of this plaque when you said, "Our Law School has always seen the figure as Jesus," thus excluding dual symbolism? If so, how do you reconcile it with your statement?

(For "blasphemy," substitute "sacrilege"--and thanks, @GregDaly, for the catch. #editbutton)