I should preface this by stating that I don't much about Mary Ann Glendon beyond the fact that she was slated to receive and honor which she has since declined to signal disapproval for another honor being bestowed by the same institution at the same time; that she is avowedly anti-abortion and pro life; and that she used to be US ambassador to the Vatican.
I don't know if she was a Bush apologist, or a supporter of a public policy of torture, or a tax cheat, or a paper clip swiper, or if she kicked her cat, or if she is any other kind of sinner.
But am I the only saying "huh?" at this editorial expressing the judgement Ms. Glendon was unworthy to receive the honor in question because, er.... she had the temerity to, uh, ... judge that someone else was unworthy of an honor, and in doing so showed herself to be "exclusionary and punitive "?
And as to the question, "since when is offering both sides of an issue, even symbolically, considered an abuse?", allow me to explain -- that would be when one "side" of the issue is morally untenable and anathema to the Faith.
Look, just because you don't support chattel slavery, don't try to inflict your morals on everyone else.
Your race is inferior to my race.
Women should have no leagal standing outside of being someon's wife or daughter.
Like that, you mean? Offering the other side of an issue?
(Oh, and bringing the honoring of Pres. Kennedy into the argument by reminding us that he was an absolute scumbag of a skirt hound WHICH WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME is a perfectly idiotic argument for your thesis, Miss Standring.