Share This Page

Is Christianity homophobic?

| Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

That “loving Jesus means hating gay people” is “proclaimed in Christian churches and on Christian television and radio broadcasts.”

So declares Dan Savage in his review of Jeff Chu's “Does Jesus Really Love Me: A Gay Christian's Pilgrimage in Search of God in America” — in The New York Times Book Review.

Who is foremost among those who have made “anti-gay bigotry seem synonymous with Christianity”? The Family Research Council and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says Savage.

And who is he? A cradle Catholic who says he “was in church every Sunday for the first 15 years of my life. Now I spend my Sundays on my bike, on my snowboard or on my husband.”

One gets the point. And in handing this review to an apostate Catholic and atheist homosexual, The Times was nailing its anti-Catholic colors to the mast.

No true Catholic church can preach that Jesus hates gays. “Love your enemies” is the message of Christ. Hate the sin and love the sinner is taught in Catholic schools. This has been Catholic doctrine for 2,000 years.

Yet, in contending that America is reaching a “cultural tipping point,” Savage is not all wrong.

Undeniably, the Christian view alienates millions. Many of America's young have come to accept that homosexuality is a natural preference of a significant minority and ought to be accommodated, and same-sex unions ought to be treated as traditional marriages.

Case in point. At George Washington University, two students have demanded that Father Greg Shaffer of the Newman Center be removed for creating an environment hostile to gays.

The priest's offense: When Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, Shaffer posted a blog restating Catholic teaching condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and immoral. In private sessions, Shaffer also counseled gay students to remain celibate.

One senior, Damian Legacy, says he was shaken by Father Greg's admonition that he was risking his soul and by his ouster from the Newman Center after the priest learned he was in a relationship with a male student. Legacy and his partner have filed complaints against Shaffer with the university Office for Diversity and Inclusion. They are asking the Student Association to cut funding to the Newman Center.

Though a minor collision in the culture war, this clash at GW may be a harbinger of what is coming, as the homosexual community seeks to have its agenda written into law and fastened onto the nation.

For traditional Christianity's view that homosexual acts are immoral and same-sex marriage an absurdity cannot be reconciled with the view that homosexuality is natural and gay marriage a human right. The issue is pulling the Republican Party apart. It is pulling Christian communities apart. It is pulling the nation apart.

If the gay rights agenda is imposed, we could have priests and pastors declaring that the triumph of gay rights is a defeat for God's Country, and the new laws are immoral and need be neither respected nor obeyed.

Something akin to this could be in the cards if the homosexual rights movement is victorious — a public rejection of the new laws by millions and a refusal by many to respect or obey them.

A new era of civil disobedience may be at hand.

Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.