Saturday, August 21, 2004
McGreevy and the Church
Sed Contra style. Read it and weep. Sorta.
A couple of things need to be pointed out here. First, the Church does not call me as a man living with same sex attraction to a different standard than to which she calls all other unmarried people. In case Crain hasn't been paying attention lately, there are an awful lot of those unmarried folks around. Scads. My parishes have a lot of folks roughly my age, 41, who do not live with same sex attraction and who have either never been married and have about as much chance of being married as they do of being hit by lightning. And the Gospel calls them to live chastely too. And this does not even address the lives of the formerly married either through widowhood or unwilling divorce who also live chastely.
Second, Crain's position appears to be deeply dehumanizing, dare I say even loathing, of people with same sex attraction. It appears that in Crain's mind it is just cruel to ask McGreevey or anyone else to live up to a Gospel standard, chastity, that they simply could never meet - as though people with same sex attraction are little more than animals who must obey their urges like other species coming into heat.
This is simply a manner of thinking which is completely contra to the very core of the Gospel which is that God created men and women in His image and that we all, whether same sex attracted or not, have the free will to either choose to follow Christ or not, to choose to seek the Gospel or not.
McGreevey, like all married people, have the choice of whether to honor their vows to their spouse or not. That he failed to honor them with another person of the same sex might be titillating or even provide a cloak of justification in this day and age, but in no way does the presence of a same sex partner or even a gay self-identification remove the power and responsibility of free will.
A couple of things need to be pointed out here. First, the Church does not call me as a man living with same sex attraction to a different standard than to which she calls all other unmarried people. In case Crain hasn't been paying attention lately, there are an awful lot of those unmarried folks around. Scads. My parishes have a lot of folks roughly my age, 41, who do not live with same sex attraction and who have either never been married and have about as much chance of being married as they do of being hit by lightning. And the Gospel calls them to live chastely too. And this does not even address the lives of the formerly married either through widowhood or unwilling divorce who also live chastely.
Second, Crain's position appears to be deeply dehumanizing, dare I say even loathing, of people with same sex attraction. It appears that in Crain's mind it is just cruel to ask McGreevey or anyone else to live up to a Gospel standard, chastity, that they simply could never meet - as though people with same sex attraction are little more than animals who must obey their urges like other species coming into heat.
This is simply a manner of thinking which is completely contra to the very core of the Gospel which is that God created men and women in His image and that we all, whether same sex attracted or not, have the free will to either choose to follow Christ or not, to choose to seek the Gospel or not.
McGreevey, like all married people, have the choice of whether to honor their vows to their spouse or not. That he failed to honor them with another person of the same sex might be titillating or even provide a cloak of justification in this day and age, but in no way does the presence of a same sex partner or even a gay self-identification remove the power and responsibility of free will.
