Father Jim

The papers report that Hizonor, Jim McGreevey, having been compelled to resign the highest office in New Jersey -- ostensibly due to his gay relationship -- now desires to pursue a position in which such predilections, apparently, present little concern: priest.

McGreevey’s stated motivations for leaving office remain highly dubious. Given that his opinion polls looked better the day after he left than the day before, and given the abysmally low standards for behavior in office set by (say) Bill Clinton, the idea that a man who spent his entire life aspiring to the Governorship would permit a mere personal pecadillo to force his resignation rings very hollow. Most people, justifiably, don’t care much what their public officials do between the sheets (unless they’re Republicans, in which case they stand accused of hypocrisy, a greater offense in modern sexual politics than deviations from the asserted norm) and although McGreevey clearly would have been subjected to JibJab-style ribbing, he could easily have survived that "scandal" -- at least, with the electorate.

So, now, Father Jim would purport to address the spiritual needs of a congregation. Who knows? He might be good at it. It might prove interesting to see how his faith informs his homilies.

At least on one level, McGreevey – a hopeless leftist who described his own rhetoric as "Bolshevik" – would clearly make a better priest than he did a Governor. Because if priests -- to the extent that they concern themselves with the Earthly realm -- preach a "social gospel", as it were, they still lack the power to INSIST that other folks follow their peculiar policy predilections. In power, leftists lack any such restraint, refusing to draw a distinction between that which one should do (perhaps under threat of eternal damnation), and that which one must do, under the very real threat of being hauled off in handcuffs.

Priests appeal to the better angels of our nature, properly exhorting us to be our brothers’ keeper. They employ persuasion, perhaps even shame, to convince their congregants to act as they believe Jesus (in the case of an Episcopalian) wishes them to act: ministering to the sick, the lame, the halt, the blind, the poor, etc. The faithful, perhaps moved by the power of the preacher’s words, often willingly sacrifice for the benefit of those to whom life has been less kind. Such, obviously, is the nature of charity.

Alas, the Left, in power, employs the same rhetoric, but removes one essential element required in any act of charity: choice. (There is more than a little irony in the fact that the Party which so strongly asserts its devotion to "choice" advocates its denial in essentially every area, save one.)

Confronted by the preacher’s admonitions, the parishioner looks down at his checkbook and assesses his ability to assist the less fortunate. If (say) his kids orthodontic bill is due, he may give less than he might at a time when feeling somewhat more flush.

When the State decides that it should undertake those charitable undertakings, the tax collector doesn’t want to hear that your own kid’s tuition is past due; he demands your money, placing the asserted needs of the beneficiaries (and, of course, the needs of the handsomely paid public employees who administer those programs instead of the volunteer priests and nuns of old) ahead of your own family’s needs and desires.

All things considered, I want my priest to be a social liberal. I want him urging, cajoling, begging, the congregation toward greater sacrifice for the good of the less fortunate. Indeed, I want him to administer those programs himself, as he’ll do it because he should, not because it’s a living, with more of the contribution serving the beneficiary than the employees of the charity (or government).

But I don’t want my priests with the power to insist upon my acting as they believe appropriate. One might prefer to spend one’s money on oneself, one’s kids, or whatever. One might believe that the priest asks too much from the donor and not enough from the people he contends we should be assisting. One might believe that money should be spent educating kids rather than helping drug addicts – both, perhaps, worthy causes, but each of us is entitled to our own priorities. And one might believe that the level of sacrifice the priests suggests – while, perhaps, appropriate for a priest – is simply too much. Try making that argument to the tax collector.

So, I’ll be happy to listen to Father Jim preach; I might even agree with some of his goals and work with him – consistent with my abilities – to fund those voluntary programs. But, I submit, society will be much better served by Father Jim preaching – and asking – than it is by Governor Jim –or Jon – demanding. As a priest, Father Jim might serve both the cause of the poor and freedom; as an elected official, like all leftists, he was a disaster for both.