I’m curious as to why you (like many other conservatives) choose that particular phrase to summarize the PB-elect’s heterodoxies. As someone else pointed out on this thread, the proposition that people don’t generally choose to have a homosexual orientation is not contrary to Christian orthodoxy. In fact, I’d claim that it is a simple piece of observation. That does not mean that no one chooses to experiment with same-sex activity when they could find fulfillment elsewhere; nor does it mean that a person of homosexual orientation has to give in to those desires.
But when conservatives appear to pin their case on the notion that homosexuals choose to live a dangerous and generally stigmatized lifestyle out of sheer perversity when they could quite easily be happy heterosexuals, they make the conservative position a laughing-stock.
The problem with +Jefferts-Schori’s view of homosexuality isn’t the proposition that homosexuality is not a choice, but the deduction that if it isn’t a choice it must be part of God’s creative plan. In other words, her real heresy is Pelagianism–the denial of original sin. She doesn’t even entertain the possibility that people might have (indeed that all people do have) desires and inclinations that they have not personally chosen but are nonetheless sinful. This in the face of evidence just as obvious as the evidence for the “non-chosen” nature of most homosexuality. In other words, there are propensities (sexual and otherwise–pedophilia is the most obvious example but it’s not the only one) that people have that are obviously not chosen by them, but are nonetheless sinful and must be resisted at all costs.
That is the point at issue between orthodox Christians and liberals like +Jefferts-Schori. And I don’t understand why conservative Christians keep chasing this red herring of homosexuality being a “choice.” For someone who believes in original sin, it really doesn’t matter. And as G. K. Chesterton said, original sin is the one Christian doctrine that can really be proved.
Edwin
.