Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

andrew sullivan on larry craig

By Diogenes (articles ) | Sep 06, 2007

"... the large implications of an almost laughably petty misdemeanor are revealing of problems deeper than one man's personal tragedy."

Almost laughably petty. Noted. Remember that the next time you hear your fellow Catholics criticized for their reluctance to hire the Andrew Sullivans in their midst as teachers in their elementary schools, high schools, seminaries ...

An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!

Progress toward our April expenses ($18,045 to go):
$35,000.00 $16,955.48
52% 48%
Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 8 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Sep. 08, 2007 8:54 PM ET USA

    Not on the A. Sullivan issue, but on Pavarotti. Did not his divorce several years ago rule out his singing (esp. at weddings) in Catholic Churches. Do we know anything about his relationship to Christ and his church in his last days?

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 6:40 PM ET USA

    I dunno. I'm 71 years old and have never touched another man's foot while sitting on the throne in a public restroom. Since Larry Craig apparently did, I'd guess it was intentional. If it was intentional it was a way of saying hello. If the other fellow withdrew his foot the dance would be over. If he didn't you'd know you had a live one. In any case it would be an immoral solicitation and I imagine that's what the cop thought too. Public restrooms have one purpose and it isn't sexual activity.

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 6:31 PM ET USA

    Many years ago I went to use a men's room in the conservatory of the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. I just stepped into to the rather dim, very smoky environment when I noticed quickly that a score at least of middle class males were all standing around in poses less than the need to use the urinals, toilets or sink. This is the reason for posting a cop in a men's room in Mpls. What if children walk in? What Craig did was stupid on too many counts to remain as a US Senator.

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 5:25 PM ET USA

    Dear Heidi, you are right, it does not make any sense. The problem is that Sen. Craig’s case is a bad mix of politics and morality ( a good mix is possible too) Relativism makes punishments – like everything else – dependent on any irrelevant factor you can think of. Here the judgment was made on the basis of belonging to a certain political party. As G K Chesterton said: the common sense in not at all common.

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 5:10 PM ET USA

    Frankly, I cannot remember any case in which people have so flagrantly flaunted the principle on which justice in the U.S. is to be based. Innocent until proven guilty of the charge. The Senator from Idaho may indeed have made an error in judgment in pleading guilty to something else. But to declare him guilty of soliciation requires proof. I don't think we have that proof. And as to the mortal sin, God knows, man does not. And God forgives, and that is what is really important. Jashu

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 1:01 PM ET USA

    Dear Leo XIII, It's funny how you get this: Why is our society so compelled to categorize people by their sexual proclivities? from the police trying to stop sex in a public restroom. Does the sodomization of children by priests also confound you to a similar end? Sen. Craig didn't wind up in this mess because he was categorized as gay. As for your last point, Sen. Craig already has God's forgiveness through his faith, assuming he has faith. What he needs in that department is repentance

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 12:32 PM ET USA

    Your country ceases to amaze me!On one hand a man can be all but destroyed because he "allegedly solicits" a male for sex in a mens' toilet. On the other, men are free to sodomise each other legally dependent on the state you live in! This is crazy! Can someone explain the difference? I'm not very bright!

  • Posted by: - Sep. 06, 2007 10:18 AM ET USA

    Why is our society so compelled to categorize people by their sexual proclivities? Is it because our society is preoccupied with sex? Is it because we have become too affluent for our own good? Do we have too much leisure time, too much time to view the internet, too much time and money to purchase bad music by bad "composers"? The fact is that, whatever his sexual proclivity, Senator Craig probably committed a mortal sin and needs God's forgiveness and redemption.

Subscribe for free
Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

Recent Catholic Commentary

Round Trip to the present moment: a Catholic jazz artist's latest offering April 22
Easter with the Pope April 21
Smaller Church, Bigger Faith, 3: Ecclesiastical Discipline April 17
The Holy Spirit and Evangelization: A Primer April 16
Journey to the Sun: A Strange Biography of Junípero Serra April 16

Top Catholic News

Most Important Stories of the Last 30 Days
Pope Francis: Easter Vigil homily (full text) CWN - April 20
Pope Francis's Easter Message 'Urbi et Orbi' (To the City and the World): full text, link to video CWN - April 20