Posted in category "Politics"
Back when I lived in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, my Congressional representative was a young man with a good future. His name was Vito Fossella, and he was known as a staunch family values conservative. He voted against gay marriage and for posting the Ten Commandments in public places. Fossella and his wife had three children. She was a stay-at-home mom, and they were communicants at St. Clare’s Church on Staten Island. Staten Island is home to many socially conservative Catholics, so Fossella was a perfect fit.
On May 1, 2008, he was arrested for drunk driving, and his life totally unraveled. It turns out he was on the way to visit his second family. 
Fossella had fathered a three-year-old daughter with Laura Fay, a former Air Force colonel The Republican congressman was a regular visitor to Fay’s tidy townhouse - taking strolls around the Alexandria, VA neighborhood with his second family like any other dad in apple-pie America.
Fossella met the mother of his love child during a Congressional junket. She isn’t a stranger to adultery herself–her first husband divorced her for running around; with the second they both had outside affairs.
Now, let’s examine his record on preserving “the sanctity of marriage.”
In 2004, Fossella voted for the Marriage Protection Act, which essentially would have prevented courts from striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That bill passed the House by a vote of 233-194 and later died in the Senate.
Later in the same month in 2004, , Fossella voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have amended the U.S. Constitution to explicitly ban marriages for same-sex couples in any part of the United States. It would have been the first time that discrimination was to be enshrined in the Constitution. That bill passed the House by a vote of 236-187 and later died in the Senate.
In 2006, Fossella voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, make it the third time he chose to stand up and firmly deny same-sex couples the thousands of rights and protections that come with a federal and state marriage license.
I find it interesting that Fossella had such strong feelings about an institution that apparently didn’t have much meaning to him in the end.
“From today on, my cathedral will be the country,” Fernando Lugo declared when he resigned from the priesthood in December 2006. The Vatican, irritated by the public gesture, says Lugo remains a priest and is barred by canon law from seeking public office.
But this former bishop ran for the office of president of Paraguay. And won. His slogan: “Lugo has heart.” His personal warmth and religious background stirred hope in many Paraguayans seeking change.
The election last Sunday was only the 4th time that Paraguayans have gone to the polls to elect a president since the fall of the dictator Alfredo Stroessner in 1989. Stroessner ruled Paraguay, a country of seven million people, for almost 35 years, leaving a legacy of corruption and one of the worst human rights records in the hemisphere.
The Colorado Party, which supported Stroessner and ran a woman candidate against Lugo, had been in power longer than any other political party in the world - almost 60 years.
The 56-year-old Lugo has never held elective office, but he comes from a middle-class family of political activists. Three of his brothers were tortured during the Stroessner dictatorship for being political activists.
Supporters say Lugo radiates a priest-like sense of honesty. He vows to fight corruption, impose long-delayed agrarian reform to benefit the landless and renegotiate hydroelectric deals with neighboring Brazil and Argentina to fund education and other neglected social needs.
Lugo refused to be characterized as a leftist or anything other than a deeply religious crusader who fights for the little guy. He takes inspiration from liberation theology, a movement championing the downtrodden but assailed by the Vatican for Marxist influences.
“I have taken a preferential option for the poor, and many interpret that as meaning I am a leftist,” Lugo said. “But I believe I am in the center. My beliefs are against confrontation and violence.”
Lugo did stints as a schoolteacher and missionary before becoming a rural bishop known for both his political activism and conciliatory skills. He says he opted to seek office after more than 100,000 people signed a petition urging him to run. On the campaign trail, he still sports his priestly sandals.
Lugo says he remains a devout Catholic who takes Communion each Sunday and finds succor in his faith. “The church has shown me how the poor live in this country. That inspires me to work on behalf of this class that is so demeaned, so abandoned, so forgotten.”
I’m happy for Paraguay, but I wish he was running for president in the U.S. He has the right stuff - priorities and humanity.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy hasn’t acted on the nomination of Federal District Judge Robert Conrad of Charlotte, NC, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. President Bush nominated Conrad for the position on July 17, 2007. 
In 1999, when Conrad was a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Western North Carolina, he went after a group of nuns who opposed the death penalty. In a letter to the editor printed in the Catholic Dossier, he referred to Sister Helen Prejean as a “church-hating nun” and said her book was merely “liberal drivel.”
Conrad attacked Planned Parenthood in a Charlotte Observer Op-Ed titled “Planned Parenthood: A Radical, Pro-Abortion Fringe Group.” In the article he claimed “Planned Parenthood knowingly kills unborn babies, not fetuses, as a method of ‘post-conception’ contraception, and to them that’s OK.”
“His statements make me wonder,” Leahy said, “whether any person going before Judge Conrad in a case involving reproductive rights, or indeed any issues relating to personal privacy, will feel their arguments have been fairly heard.”
Sen. Leahy and Judge Conrad are both Catholic.
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review magazine, and a driving force in the rise of conservative politics in the post-war era, had his memorial service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York on April 4th. The recessional piece, Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F Major, was also the theme for “Firing Line,” Buckley’s long-running syndicated television show. All 2,200 seats in St. Patrick’s were filled. His memorial, announced weeks in advance, was open to the public.
Politically, Buckley described himself as a “conservative controversialist.” But unlike some of his right-wing heirs, he did not interrupt his political opponents. Rather, he gave them time to articulate their positions during his debates. And Buckley’s provocative remarks were mostly ameliorated by humor, elegant diction, and a mischevious smile.
During one memorable encounter on ABC with Gore Vidal, however, Buckley lost his temper - responding with a homophobic slur and threatening to sock Vidal in the face when the author called him a “cryto-Nazi.”
The two never made up, and Vidal kept throwing darts at Buckley and his politics.
“Granted, Buckley’s brand of conservatism, especially in the early years, had its ugly side,” Hendrik Hertzberg wrote recently for the New Yorker. “He embraced (Sen. Joseph) McCarthy and McCarthyism. He conflated liberalism and communism. He dismissed the civil rights movement….But he did his best to purge the right of anti-Semitism, overt racism, xenophobia, philistinism and anti-intellectualism.”
Here’s my take: I liked Bill Buckley the way I liked John Cardinal O’Connor. I liked them for their character, and the fact they were multi-dimensional human beings with a sense of humor. What I also appreciated about them was their graciousness. They spoke with irony (how could they not…they were Irish), but without any meanness.
There is a quality of meanness in many conservative Catholic bloggers that is a big turn-off. If you express a differing opinion from the Magisterium and/or Republican Party, you get bulls-eye’d–not engaged as a fellow human being. Particularly spiteful posts are often accompanied by a vultures’ chorus of “Blessed Mother protect us” type of sentiments, or heart-felt wishes the Pope will whack the hell of whatever miscreant(s) are getting kicked. Folks, what happened to the Gospel?
For the other side, offer an opinion that can be perceived as one millimeter over the line of political-correctness, and you will find yourself frozen in intellectual and social Siberia. Forever. Folks, the mind and the spirit need to be free to roam. Creative solutions don’t come from lockstep views.
What happened to just having a discussion? You can be passionate; you can get heated, but is it necessary to have contempt when you disagree?
Buckley spoke in sentences, not platitudes. He is a good role model for every Catholic that takes up the pen, and values a good “turn of the phrase.”
Catholics make up about one quarter of the registered voters in the U.S., and have backed the winner of the national popular vote for the last nine presidential elections going back to 1972.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has run away with the votes of Roman Catholic Democrats in nearly all the primaries, often beating Barak Obama by two to one or better. In New York, she received 66% of the Catholic vote vs. his 30%.
While the pro-life and anti-gay marriage contingent has been vocal, a new wave of progressive Catholics has focused on increasing the minimum wage, ending the war in Iraq, and implementing universal health care. This group has emerged as a key voting bloc this election year.
Catholic voters gravitate to Senator Clinton for several reasons: favorable memories of her husband’s administration, her emphasis on health care, and support of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Some of her positive showing is also the result of support from working class Catholics and Hispanics, two groups that have largely been ignored by both parities.
Some Catholic Democrats say that Senator Clinton’s emphasis on specific solutions is similar to Catholic social teaching, which urges its followers to use the doctrine as a way of bringing about positive social change particularly when it comes to poverty and, more recently, protecting the environment. “We’ve got a history of not only having faith, but acting on it,” says Bill Roth, director of Catholic Democrats of California.
Another argument is the “nun theory” which holds that Catholics are more accustomed to strong-minded female leadership because of the prominent role of nuns.
“I think Catholic Democrats…are accustomed to having female authority figures in the form of sisters in our schools and Senator Clinton, I think, benefits from that,” said Christopher McNally, the Pennsylvania chair of Catholic Democrats and an active Obama supporter.
The “nun theory” was first floated by Catherine T. Nolan, who attended St. Aloysius elementary school in Queens, NY and now represents her old neighborhood in the New York State Assembly. She notes that older Catholic voters grew up with women in charge of daily life.
“Maybe we’re a little more open to female leadership,” said Ms. Nolan, chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, one of the most powerful legislative jobs in Albany. “We had female role models from an early age. When I was growing up, all the Catholic school principals were women, and almost none of the public school principals were. That’s changed now, but we’ve been used to female authority figures for much longer than other groups.”
In case you’re wondering..this 55-year-old Catholic Democratic voter originally supported Sen. Joe Biden, then Sen. Christopher Dodd, then Governor Bill Richardson, and now Sen. Hillary Clinton for president.
I’m sorry New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg isn’t running. He would have been my first choice.
I haven’t decided who I will vote for if the presidential election comes down to Barak Obama and John McCain.
Matos McGreevey is seeking $600,000 in a divorce filing in which she accuses her husband, the former governor of New Jersey, of defrauding her by hiding his homosexuality.
But a former driver and aide to Jim McGreevey made the bombshell claim that Dina Matos McGreevey must have always known her husband was gay - because he was the other man in bed with them.
In an explosive March 16 interview with the NY Post, Ted Pedersen, 29, gave explicit details on three-way sex romps that he claimed to have had with the McGreeveys, starting during their courtship and ending when McGreevey became governor in November 2001.
Pedersen told the Newark Star-Ledger that he had sex with Matos McGreevey while her husband watched.
Pedersen said never had sex with McGreevey, but hinted he thinks his presence was required to get McGreevey aroused. He thought the former governor only had “light interest” in him.
Pedersen said he and the McGreeveys had what they called “Friday Night Specials” that began with dinner at T.G.I. Friday’s and ended with sex at McGreevey’s condo.
Dina Matos McGreevey shot back by declaring Pedersen’s claims were “completely false” and that he is one of her husband’s “cronies.” She told ABC News that last August McGreevey paid for Pedersen to go to China with him and Mark O’Donnell, his domestic partner. The three of them, plus a few others in McGreevey’s innner circle went there for vacation.
Pedersen retorted that she was in denial and a hypocrite. He said he came forward in part because he disputed Matos McGreevey’s assertions that she was unaware of her husband’s homosexuality.
The McGreeveys go back to court on Thursday. In the meantime, I am left with two questions:
- Didn’t Dina McGreevey think it even a wee bit odd her boyfriend liked to watch another man screw her?
- Are there T.G.I. Friday’s in China now?
Last week I got an email from Fortunate Families asking us to contact the New York State Catholic Conference and express our unhappiness over one of the NYSCC’s main lobby day priorities - “Oppose the Legalization of Same-Sex Unions.”
This week saw Lt. Governor David Paterson ascend to the governership of New York. He will complete the term of Gov. Elliot Spitzer, who resigned on March 12 when his patronage of high class call girls came to light.
Paterson’s chief of staff, and Albany’s new head gatekeeper, is a former Jesuit priest who presided at John F. Kennedy Jr.’s wedding, and wrote a never-published book about sex in the Catholic church.
Charles O’Byrne made headlines in September 2002 with this Playboy magazine article - “Sex & Sexuality: One Man’s Story About Religious Life and What Seminaries Really Teach About Sex.”
In the Playboy piece, O’Bryne wrote that while a Jesuit “I became aware there was sex all around me–including relationships between Jesuits. One of my best friends, a virgin at 30, was surprised when his superior encouraged him to respond to the sexual overtures of an older Jesuit. When another friend fell in love with a woman, the seminary superiors supported his relationship..”
O’Byrne specifically cited the issue of gay priests, saying the American Catholic church may not be able to stay within the Vatican fold if Roman continues to maintain certain blatant contradictions. He cited the church’s insistence that homosexuality is an “intrinsic evil” while at the same time the church has a significant number of priests who are gay. Asked to estimate the percentage of American priests who are homosexual, O’Byrne, 43, said, “In my peer group, I can easily say 70 percent, comfortably, no question about it.”
O’Byrne is now on leave of absence. He is still a priest, but he cannot administer sacraments or say Mass.
After leaving the Jesuits in 2004, he worked for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. Then-Senate Minority Leader Paterson to instill more discipline in his staff.
Archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling said O’Byrne’s past “certainly won’t impede us from working with the governor.”
Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Migration, criticized immigration laws in a February 7, 2008 statement sent after both houses of Congress approved an economic and stimulus package that included language to prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving tax rebates.
“The decision to prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving tax rebates in the stimulus bill highlights the injustice in our immigration system,” he wrote. “It proves that these workers pay into the tax system and support the economy. It also reveals the hypocrisy of our laws. With one hand our government attempts to deport these workers, but with the other it holds tight the taxes they pay into the system. This perpetuates an underclass of workers without full rights.”
“We should not accept the fruits of the labor of these workers at the same time we refuse to provide them the protection of our laws. As a democratic and free nation protective of human rights, we cannot have it both ways. Congress must mend a broken system and show the courage to enact comprehensive immigration reform.”
A Catholic university in Texas is coming under fire from pro-life advocates for hosting a rally for pro-choice Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s campaign has set up a rally at Greehey Auditorium on the campus of St. Mary’s University.
Word of the rally reached San Antonio Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, who told WOAI radio that the university is wrong to give Clinton a platform to air views that going against church teaching on abortion. “Our Catholic institutions must promote the clear understanding of our deep moral convictions on an issue like abortion, an act that the Church calls “‘an unspeakable crime’ and a non negotiable issue,’” he told the radio station.
St. Mary’s University president Charles Cotrell released at statement defending the decision to hold the rally: “As a Catholic tax-exempt university, St. Mary’s does not endorse political candidates or their positions on issues and acknowledges the fundamental differences between those of the presidential candidates and those of the Catholic Church,” he said.
After reading the online article, I sent the following email to the head of communications at St. Mary’s University:
Thank you for holding firm to have presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as a speaker. Catholic institutions should not be used by clergy and others motivated by political agendas to promote their selective use of church teaching.
I am still looking for the day when a bishop denies a speaking engagement or event to a politician because he or she votes large tax breaks to oil and agri-business instead of promoting food stamps and school meals, health care and education for poor children; backs the death penalty; and wars deemed unjust and unnecessary. These are “culture of life” issues, too, with plenty of “innocent lives” at stake.
My question to Bishop Gomez - why would you think Hillary Clinton would pick a Catholic university to focus on abortion….unless, of course, some political operative in the audience is primed to attack her on this issue? Isn’t it possible she’s planning to speak about other areas related to Catholic Social Teaching…like the preferential option for the poor, dignity for working people and immigrants, and health care?
