i read Sullivan pretty regularly; his opinions seem pretty well reasoned in general and its pretty rare these days to find a "conservative" that isnt religion crazy or war crazy or what have you (at least i've had trouble with it). so i was pretty surprised to read this quote:
"In the end, I do not experience being Catholic as a choice any more than I experience being gay as a choice. "
this doesnt make any sense to me. Homosexuality is, as far as i'm concerned, not a choice. i think the science is heading that way, it makes sense as a form of population control, my roommate (my resident expert on all things gay) said it wasnt a choice for him (i seem to recall such a conversation anyway). i didnt choose to be straight, i dont know why anyone would _choose_ to be stigmatized, etc etc etc.
but faith definitely _is_ a choice. thats the whole point, i thought. you choose to believe, in spite of the lack of evidence. thats the whole idea behind the sacrament of confirmation; you were too young to choose to believe any of this stuff when you were baptised (which is why your godparents do it for you), but now you're of age and you can choose to do it yourself.
most religious people believe their religion is correct. say for example, Jesus with was, or was not, the Messiah. obviously catholics say yes, others say no, and whichever category you fall into, you belive yourself to be right (of course you do, everyone believes they're right, or else they wouldnt hold whatever believe that is). but if Sullivan is saying he didnt choose to be catholic, isnt he implicitly admitting he's no more right than any other faith? wouldnt that sort of fly in the face of the whole point of religion anyway?
i havent read his book, in which he apparently goes into detail about all this stuff, so i'll try to refrain from making any conclusions. but it was a surprising and confusing quote to run across; if thats how he feels, that he has no choice but to be catholic, i wonder what he even gets out of it.