They Can’t Help Themselves.

Mark Tushnet is a prominent lefty law professor. His daughter is gay. She is also a Catholic, and became one in college:

Ms. Tushnet entered Yale in 1996 a happy lesbian, out since age 13 or 14 (she can’t quite remember). Her father, a nonobservant Jew, and her mother, a Unitarian, both belonged to progressive traditions, tolerant of her sexuality.

When, as a freshman, she attended a meeting of the Party of the Right, a conservative group affiliated with the Yale Political Union, it was “specifically to laugh at them, to see the zoo animals,” she says.

“But I was really impressed, not only by the weird arguments but the degree to which it was clear that the people making them lived as if what they were saying had actual consequences for their lives, that had required them to make sacrifices.”

But she found the Party of the Right students compassionate, intellectual and not terribly exercised about her homosexuality. She was drawn to the Catholics among them, who corrected her misimpression that the existence of sin “means you are bad.” It means “precisely the opposite,” they taught her. “It means you have a chance to come back and repent and be saved,” she says. She began reading books like St. Anselm’s “Why God Became Man.” She began attending church. Her sophomore year, she was baptized.

“By the time it was real enough to be threatening,” she says of her conversion, “things had gone too far. I didn’t see it coming.”

After college, Ms. Tushnet worked briefly at the National Catholic Register, a weekly magazine, but since 2002 she has made a meager living through writing, computer programming and freelance research. She lives in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of downtown Washington and volunteers two hours a week at a Christian pregnancy-counseling center. She writes for liberal Catholic publications like Commonweal, and for conservative secular magazines like The Weekly Standard.

It’s all too much for the creepy reporter; whereas his subject shows only grace, he eventually breaks down and shows an odd, childish hatred for her:

She may befuddle others, but for her, life is joyful. She takes obvious pleasure in being an eccentric in a tradition with no shortage of odd heroes, visionaries and saints. “You can be really quite strange, and the Catholic church will canonize you eventually,” she says. She loves eating the flesh and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which she believes is a carnivorous meal, not a metaphor. She loves gay synth-pop bands.

You can tell the ass-hats among us. They distort what they are told. I bet she did not say she believed it was a “carnivorous meal”. Most likely, she said she believed it was the true body and blood of Christ, which the asshat then decided to misinterpret to make her sound stupid.

But the only thing it shows is what  a complete jerk the reporter is.

You can see the juvenality coming out: (Imagine the reporter as Beavis, or Butthead)  Heh. She said it was the body of Christ. Heh. Heh. But if you believe it is the real body of Christ, you must think you are eating a body. You must be a cannibal. Heh. Heh.

But as the most rudimentary investigation shows, Catholics believe it is the real body of Christ, but in mystical form. They don’t believe they are actually eating Christ’s physical  body. If the reporter were willing to work, and was willing to spend 10 seconds (That’s how long it took me) to find out what Catholics believe, he would have found:

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians see the Real Presence in terms not of a physical or “carnal” presence, but of transubstantiation/metousiosis.

You can see there is a lot of nuance here. But that is not something the New York Times is good at, considering their Beavis and Butthead ways.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.