Normal and Abnormal Views—the perspective of The New York Times

Today’s The New York Times published and editorial entitled “A Nominee’s Abnormal Views.” [HERE] The subject of this editorial is the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be the next Surgeon General of the United States. If confirmed by the Senate, Dr. Holsinger would lead the country’s Public Health Service; moreover, he would have for the foreseeable future a platform from which to offer his views on a wide range of medical issues that would presumably draw on his many years of public service dealing with health issues. As the editorial correctly notes, he would serve as the nation’s “chief health educator” and would have “potentially enormous capacity to shape public opinion.”

Curiously The New York Times does not refer to its own enormous capacity to shape public opinion, but I would disagree with the editorial’s authors that Dr. Holsinger’s views on homosexual sex are abnormal. From what the Times alleges about him, I suspect that Dr. Holsinger and I would disagree on questions regarding cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The fact that he and I might differ on this vital issue would not allow me to reach the same conclusion that the Times is so quick to reach. In my opinion, the Doctor would be wrong if he, in fact, supports human cloning for embryonic stem cell research. I would not, however, characterize his perspective on this matter as “abnormal” since it is held by many influential people whom I also believe are wrong.

Abnormal means: irregular; nonstandard; uncharacteristic; atypical; anomalous; strange; odd; peculiar; deviant; aberrant; or malformed. Ironically, the Times (as it suggests when it states that it is “difficult to pigeonhole [him] ideologically”] and Dr. Holsinger probably share similar views on human cloning that leads to stem cell research and the destruction of the human embryos involved in this research. What is “troubling” to The New York Times about this nominee is that Dr. Holsinger is also an active lay leader in the United Methodist Church who opposes homosexual practice.

I may not have written this posting on this Times editorial if it simply asserted its disagreement with the Doctor’s views on homosexual practices. However, for this influential paper and powerful shaper of public opinion to brand and condemn the Doctor’s view on this important topic as “abnormal” should be of grave concern not only to Americans, in general, but to Catholics, in particular. It will be all the more easy in the future for the Times to oppose and denounce a faithful Catholic nominee to any national, state, or local post whose views differ with theirs. Now, that action, should the Times pursue it, would be abnormal.    RJA sj