|
McGreevey claims to be a devout Catholic, yet he undermines the church's teachings.
The article says 'He also supports abortion rights, stem cell research, domestic partnerships and the death penalty, all of which go against Catholic church teachings and edicts.'
The reason why he politically supports those points, one is led to believe in the article, is because his constituency demands this of him. If he was to personally agree with those points, then it should be obvious he can't call himself a 'devout' Catholic.
But why then isn't McGreevey complaining or voicing his dissatisfaction when he is 'forced' to sign in something that he personally does not believe in? To work for something that is against a personal belief without even trying to express objection just is just plain wrong. Judges follow a set of rules (the law), and they sometimes complain when it obligates them to do something they personally object to. So do police, teachers, soldiers, or anyone else that is obligated to follow an external set of rules. Sometimes, these people find themselves obligated by their job to do something so against their personal beliefs that they resign rather than compromise what they believe. What would it take to make McGreevey resign in defiance of what his constituance want of him? It seems nothing would do this, because he is capable of supporting things that are henious to his self-professed devoted faith, and he doesn't bat an eye.
So McGreevey can't be devout in one of two ways. Either he doesn't personally follow certain church teachings, or, he does personally believes those teachings, but doesn't complain one bit when his constituants obligate him to work against those so called deeply held beliefs.
Lapsed would be a better adjective for him to use. Maybe he should find or create a religion he can better believe in.
|