So I think the narrative is really the quiet, humble, superstar athlete and man of deep faith. Without the religious angle, I think the story would never have been of significant interest to get the publicity it did.

We know that Te’o did not tell the whole truth, but I still think it is possible he believed much of what he said. If you listen carefully with an open mind, he says things that are consistent with an online relationship. For example, one of his alleged lies is saying she was the most beautiful girl he ever met, but he goes on to say it wasn’t physical beauty, but the kind of person she was.

P.S. I acknowledge some people will scoff at the idea of Notre Dame as “quintessentially Catholic,” so they can save their protests.

The tie-in is this–I think a lot of the appeal of DA (aside from the multiple plot lines, memorable characters, production qualities etc) is the moral tale that it invites us into. We are free, in DA, to love noble, self-sacrificing behavior, to hate the villains, or at least their villainy, to admire truth, beauty and goodness.

We want to go back to Downton Abbey. We can’t of course go back to that TIME, or the 1950′s, say, and we shouldn’t want to. But we can go back to a PLACE where good is good and evil is evil and we have the choice. We can do it in our own conduct, and then let it influence our family and neighborhood, and bring it into at least our own little influence on the politics and culture we find ourselves in.

We can and should, therefore, oppose those who fail to hate a shameful hoax, simply because lies are evil in themselves. We can’t go back to the 50′s, but we can return to that place.

I mean, come on. Leukemia-ridden girl, dying in a car accident? What’s next? 10 year old blind girl with cancer and with only one leg dying in a hous fire she started while hearing every member of the family dying? You know, to go over-the-top more that the person before.

I just can’t help myself. Do I have a wrong point of view perhaps?