Posted in category "Politics"
U.S. bishops, in New York and California especially, have had plenty to say about same-sex marriage in the last couple of months.
“Sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex does not pass muster,” Bishop William Murphy wrote in the Diocese of Rockville Centre newspaper. Homosexual relationships “do not serve the common good. They cannot do so because they contradict biological teleology and the natural law.”
The L.A. bishops added, “When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened.”
But after pages of obfuscating over benefits and gender, the bishops finally got to the main point of their objections: “…the movement for ‘same-sex marriage’ is less about such benefits than it is about societal acceptance and approval of homosexual relationships.” 
They’re right. As society more and more accepts gay and lesbian couples and families as friends and neighbors, the church has less and less of a sure footing to ignore or condemn us.
This past spring, Governor David Patterson of New York signed an executive order directing state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.
Patterson related to a NY Post reporter that most of the people who had come up to him to express their appreciation were not gay couples–but parents of a lesbian daughter or gay son.
The church is sunk.
While gay and lesbian couples made the issue visible, it is their parents, friends, siblings, neighbors and co-workers that are making these couples and their children a normal part of the family and community fabric.
The greatest adversaries the church will have to contend with are Catholic parents–the mothers and fathers, husbands and wives they have sworn to honor and defend.
How ironic.
One of the best statements I have read on gay marriage was a letter in Commonweal Magazine. Written by a man named Jim McCrea, it is prophetic in describing how legal and legislative battles will eventually transform the institution of marriage; not by making it inclusive, but separating its legal standing from religious vetting.
This compromise on same-sex marriage will not force the blessing of organized religion on gay couples or attempt to do so. Instead, it will substantially reduce the legal and cultural clout of clergy and the institutions they represent on the issue of marriage.
“The legal debate about same-sex marriage will be played out in voting booths and in the courts for a long time to come,” McRea begins. “Even if those of us who advocate same-sex marriage prevail, religious communities will not be forced to change their norms for marriage. If anyone attempts to force Christian communities to bless gay marriages, I and other Californians will vigorously oppose it.”
“Still, religious proscriptions masquerading as cultural norms should not be imposed on those who do not accept them. I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation on how my thirty-six-year relationship with my partner diminishes family stability or the value of anyone else’s marriage.”
“I recommend a familiar solution: Anyone who wants to get married should have to enter into a state-sanctioned civil union that confers all the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage.”
“After that, anyone who wants a religious ceremony can have one. This is what most of Europe has done for many years, and life as they know it has not come to an end.”
Lori and I are now a happily married couple.
We were married at Smith College (her alma mater) on Friday, August 15th in the morning by The Honorable J. Mary (JM) Sorrell, a Justice of the Peace in Northampton, Massachusetts. “JM” was a wonderfully kind and caring, and made the ceremony joyful and relaxed.
Before she married us, JM read selected text from the Goodridge decision, a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court which found the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.”
“…as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.”
“…(These couples) are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends…We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do. The union of two people contemplated by the laws of Massachusetts “is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. (These couples) should no longer be excluded from that association.”
JM also married that day two young men that couldn’t have been older than 21 or 22. They looked so young! As we waited to receive our marriage licenses at the town hall the four of us exchanged congratulations and good wishes.
Lori and I were happy and excited and nervous, even though we have been together for over 20 years.
I am happy for those young men, that they have the opportunity to start life together as a young married couple; and for Lori and I to finish it the same way.
Our red bouquets were inspired by the huge bouquet of flowers Lori bought for me the first night she stayed over. On her way from Brooklyn to my apartment on the upper west side of Manhattan, Lori stopped off at the 72nd Street or 79th Street (we couldn’t remember which one!) subway station and bought every red flower she could find.
When I opened the door she presented me with a gorgeous red bouquet. Our wedding bouquets were in remembrance of that first romantic and passionate gesture. 
Sally Kern is a state legislator from Oklahoma. She is also the wife of a Baptist minister. 
Kern first gained national notoriety back in March when her anti-homosexual rant to a group of 50 Republican constituents ended up on YouTube. Here are some highlights:
“Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades…”
“I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam…”
“They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle…”
“One of my colleagues said, ‘We don’t have a gay problem in our community’…well, you know, that is so dumb. If you have cancer in your little toe, do you just say that I’m going to forget about it since the rest of you is fine? It spreads! This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.”
“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation…. Not everybody’s lifestyle is equal, just like not everybody’s religion is equal and according to God’s word, it is not the right lifestyle.”
That was Goof #1, which took weeks to die down. Now, Sally’s back in the news again.
Last Wednesday, Kern was stopped by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol trying to enter the state capitol building with a loaded handgun in her bag. She said she forgot to take the .380 caliber semi-automatic out of her purse after she stopped to talk to a colleague. “It was an honest mistake from being out of my routine, you know,” she said.
Huh?
She tells one whopper after another and doesn’t bat an eyelash!
Really, what kind of lady doesn’t check her purse before leaving the house. Yep, house keys, car keys, sunglasses, cell phone, makeup bag, breath mints, loaded semi-automatic….uh, make sure the safety’s on…ok, I’m off! 
Ingrid Betancourt, 46, a former Columbian presidential candidate and political hostage, was rescued last week in a daring raid by the Columbian military. Three American hostages held with her were also freed. 
Betancourt had been held captive nearly six years in the Columbian jungle by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or Farc. She returned to a joyous welcome in France after the rescue. “I owe everything to France,” she said, after landing at a military base outside Paris to a warm greeting by President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In comments to Europe 1 radio, she said that her captors had chained her day and night for the first three years, but that she was sustained by her Roman Catholic faith and thoughts of family.
“I was in chains all the time, 24 hours a day, for three years,” she said. “I tried to wear those chains with dignity, even if I felt that it was unbearable.”
Asked if she was tortured, she said, “Yes, yes,” and her captors had fallen in to “diabolical behavior,” adding, “It was so monstrous I think they themselves were disgusted.” She called her rescue “a miracle of the Virgin Mary” and said, “You need a tremendous spirituality to stop yourself from falling into an abyss.” She made herself a wooden rosary in the jungle, she said.
Listening to Betancourt’s account of her Farc kidnappers reminded me of a time in the 1980s when I cancelled my NCR subscription. (I have since returned as a subscriber!)
At that time, the paper petered out its coverage of gay, women’s and lay protests for a voice in church finances and governance; and seemed to focus exclusively Latin American “liberation” stories and editorials.
But unfortunately, like an Animal Farm parody, the writing cast “liberation soldiers-good,” “capitalistic Americans-bad.” After a while, it got to be so lop-sided and venomous about America I stopped reading NCR.
A lot of women I knew who were members of religious communities whole-heartedly endorsed NCR’s views and their one-dimensional portrayals of rebels, peasants, government officials, American military and multinational corporations.
A lot of military operations on both sides were funded by the sale of dope grown by peasant farmers, but I don’t remember anyone speaking out against it, or its impact on the poor and hopeless in this country.
Around that time a group of us used to get together for potluck supper on Fridays. Included were several sisters from different communities. For the most part, these women were good people, thoughtful, sincere and outspoken; if a little naive about life for people outside their communities and populations they served.
Anyway, during one Friday supper, one woman, a good friend of one of the sisters, proudly related her pilgrimage to the Sandinista rebels in El Salvador. When the halo became too visible, I finally had it and dropped a stink bomb. “Did you tell them you’re a dyke,” I asked. She didn’t answer, but gave me a defiant, hostile glare. “So you told them all about yourself, but you left that part out.”
“Of course you didn’t tell them you’re a lesbian, I said. “Because if you had,” I paused and went on, “you would not have been welcomed by them as a friend. Since you’re an American, and they want our money and goodwill press, you would not have been harmed. But I bet if one of their people came out, they would have been beaten, maybe raped, and certainly forced back into the closet. How many gay groups are there in Cuba, China, El Salvador?” Nobody said a word.
The evening was over but the point was made: Let’s have a little clarity in our view, and with it, a little balance. Ideology–any ideology–in the hands of extremists becomes a killer. Ideology should never be allowed to forget the humanity it proports to serve.
Within 48 hours of her liberation, Betancourt said Columbian president Alvaro Uribe should find ways to acquire the release of other hostages held by Farc. “President Uribe, and not just President Uribe but Columbia as a whole, should change some things,” said Betancourt to the press.
Stating that forbearance and respect were urgently required, she also said: “I think the time has come to change the language of radicalism, extremism and hatred, the very strong words that cause deep hurt to a human being.”
Since Betancourt, now a global icon, may well run for president of Columbia again, it’s a statement that is both political and personal.
The interesting question is what will be the impact of the spirituality she forged in her jungle captivity? What does it mean to exist with a chain around your neck? How do you look at your captors after you are freed? 
Kicked upstairs or promoted? Why was Archbishop Raymond Burke named prefect of the Supreme Court of Apostolic Signature, the Vatican’s highest court? 
Here’s my guess:
1. The Vatican wanted to hustle him out as Archbishop of St. Louis. Too much negative press and too many excommunications. As much as Rome may dislike liberals, especially gadfly clergy, someone stepped in to put an end to Burke’s punitive management style. The actions against people who disagreed with him were too many, too public, and too harsh.
2. He’s an able canonist, and a position was available.
3. To send a message to conservative bishops tempted to use punitive measures (i.e., denial of Communion) to do so sparingly. The Vatican does not want to have to deal with a wave of bad publicity and backlash among moderate Catholics which will erase the goodwill left by Pope Benedict’s recent visit.
Like another lighting rod–Bernard Cardinal Law–a change of scenery for Archbishop Burke may be a prudent move by Mother Church.
In 2004 Archbishop Burke was the first member of the hierarchy to announce he would withhold Communion from politicians whose votes contradict Church teaching on “fundamental” moral issues. He came down hard on Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry for his support of legalized abortion. Most other bishops did not follow his lead, but his action did spur debate and controversy.
But Archbishop Burke had one-two-three strikes of bad PR in 2008 that probably helped to facilitate his “promotion.”
In March, he excommunicated the WomenPriests who were ordained in November 2007. American Catholics overwhelmingly support women’s ordination – why wave a red flag?
In April, Burke barred renowned and respected canon lawyer Fr. Thomas Doyle from acting in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Doyle accused Burke of “vindictively clubbing people with canon law.” He said Burke “has sorely misused and abused the canonical process as a way to get even with people who disagree with him or whome he sees being in opposition to him.” 
In June, in one of his last acts as Archbishop, Burke imposed the penalty of interdict on Sister Louise Lears, a nun in the order of the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, who worked at St. Cronan’s parish in St. Louis and attended the women’s ordinations last fall. The interdict prohibits Lears from receiving the sacraments and forced the parish to remove her from her ministry.
Barbara, a friend of mine who lives in Florida, sent me an email with a link to the Lears story. “I suppose you heard about this,” it read. “If you didn’t, I thought I’d send it along. One would think the church would have learned something about the ineffectiveness of the counter-Reformation. Burning people at the stake and slapping interdicts on them, didn’t bring anyone back to the church. Someone should remind these guys that this is the 21st century.”
Raffaello Follieri, 29, chairman and chief executive of The Follieri Group, was charged last week in an 18-page complaint with persuading investors he had a special relationship with the Vatican and was able to purchase church properties at below-market prices. 
For two years beginning in June 2005, the complaint alleges, Follieri “operated a fraudulent real estate investment scheme” by which he gained access to investors’ money by falsely representing his connections with high Vatican officials, including the pope.
Follieri used the money to fund a lavish lifestyle, including a luxury apartment in Manhattan, expensive restaurants, clothes, dog walking services, and “flights on privately chartered planes to various locations around the world” for himself and his live-in girlfriend, actress Anne Hathaway.
According to the criminal complaint, Follieri went to great lengths to promote the idea that he was a trusted Vatican associate, traveling with two monseigneurs and keeping a cardinal’s ceremonial garb in his U.S. office in case one of them needed to change into something more impressive.
Writer Joe Feuerherd first reported on the activities of The Follieri Group in a cover story for NCR on March 3, 2006. The entire article can be found here.
The Follieri Group saw a golden opportunity to acquire valuable real estate from dozens of dioceses and religious communities that needed to shed assets because of shifting demographics or sex abuse awards.
The Wall Street Journal covered the breakup between Follieri and his U.S. investors, including Los Angeles billionaire Ronald Burckle, a friend of former president Bill Clinton and owner of the closely held Yucaipa Cos. The scheme unraveled with Burckle asked for an audit.
The Follieri Group had a simple business plan: exploit their connection to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state, to gain access to church officials in the U.S. They told investors their key relationships in the Vatican would give them substantial advantages in obtaining properties owned by the Catholic Church in the United States. 
“Andrea Sodano, the cardinal’s nephew, is a Follieri Group vice president, a fact widely known in U.S. church real estate circles,” Feuerherd wrote.
The federal prosecutors claim Andrea Sodano played a crucial role in Follieri’s scheme by accepting payment to arrange for him to meet with bishops, cardinals and other clergymen.
But our U.S. clergy had sharper noses then some sharp-toothed investors. The Follieri Group was stopped at the door. They only obtained a handful of properties, and never developed them as promised. The audiences with U.S. prelates seem to have petered out.
The company made an awkward attempt at schmoozing at a National Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting, when their offer of placing fruit baskets in the hotel rooms of the 350 bishops was rebuffed. The company ended up handing out the baskets near the conference registration desk.
“This group has tried persistently to be part of the conference and was not permitted,” said Sister Mary Walsh, a spokesperson. “They’re not a church organization.”
Raffaello Follieri’s last hurrah was a 2008 Easter announcement of the advent of an internet-based newspaper, Catholic Decisions. This publication was going to be “an independent voice for diverse Catholic communities,” and focus on “religious, political and social justice issues as they related to the Catholic Church.” He also promised, as a Catholic publication, “we will be found to fidelity to the Catholic message as it comes to us through the Church.”
The Federal complaint mentioned a “pitch book to start up a new media company called Follieri Media.” The pitch book had been distributed to several potential investors. The presentation claimed that Follieri Media had a “unique relationship with the Catholic Church,” and it planned to acquire such assets as National Catholic Reporter, Legionnairies Radio and EWTN. NCR publisher Sr. Rita Larivee, said, “We never heard anything from the Follieri Group.”
In the center of Rome, near the Piazza Navona, is the church of Saint Apollinare. It houses a crypt where popes, cardinals and martyrs are interred.
Also buried there is Enrico De Pedis, also known as Renatino, one of the most powerful bosses of the Magliana gang. He was assassinated on February 2, 1990. De Pedis’ internment at the church is unusual procedure for a common citizen, and even more so since he was a gangster. 
Authorizing the internment at the time was Cardinal Ugo Poletti, then Vicar of Rome, who gave his permission. Cardinal Poletti died in 1997, and was eulogized by Pope John Paul II. 
Former members of the Magliana gang have said De Pedis was “very religious” and gave “huge donations” to the Church before he died, perhaps to atone for his crimes.
The church is next to a building that houses the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music. On June 22, 1983, a young girl was kidnapped after her flute lesson at the Institute. Emanuela Orlandi, the daughter of a Vatican employee, was 15 years old when she disappeared. She was spotted by a policeman getting into a dark green BMW with a man, the last time she was seen alive. Her body was never found. 
In 2006 an anonymous caller told an Italian tv program on missing persons to “take a look” at the tomb of De Pedis in the Saint Apollinare crypt. There is a persistent theory that the tomb contains the remains of Emanuela Orlandi, or some clue to her disappearance.
Police said the church was under Vatican control and therefore considered “extraterritorial” Vatican property. Permission for the white marble tomb to be opened would therefore have to be given not only by the Rome diocese but also by the Holy See, as well as by De Pedis’ widow, Carla Di Giovanni.
But the investigation into her disappearance was reopened last week following the leaked testimony of Sabrina Minardi, ex-wife of Italian soccer star Bruno Giordano and later girlfriend of Enrico De Pedis.
Minardi, who the press painted as a “recovering drug addict,” alleged in a statement to Italian police that De Pedis had kidnapped Orlandi, put her in a sack and threw her into a cement mixer in Torvaianica, an area of sand dunes on the coast near Rome.
Minardi also alleged that Orlandi had been seized and killed on the orders of Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, then then head of the Vatican Bank “to send a message to someone,” she said, without revealing more. She claimed that De Pedis had taken her to lunch in Torvaianica and told her he had two sacks in the car.
“He said he had the body of Emanuela Orlandi with him,” Minardi claimed in the police statement.
De Pedis and his driver “went to a building site. I stayed in the car. They threw it all into a cement mixer. That’s how they got rid of all the proof.”She added: “This was not a killing for money, it was a symbolic kidnapping. They seized Emanuela to give someone a message.”
Archbishop Paul Marcinkus’ catchall phrase – “You can’t run the Church on Hail Marys” – must have served him well as president of the Institute for the Works of Religion, also known as the Vatican Bank, which he headed from 1971 to 1989. He died in Sun City, Arizona in February 2006. 
As head of the Vatican Bank, Marcinkus became embroiled in legal trouble and sensational speculation because of his business ties to two notorious Italian financiers: Michele Sindona, who was poisoned while serving a jail term for fraudulent transactions; and Roberto Calvi, who was found hanging from London’s Blackfriars Bridge in 1982.
The Vatican angrily reacted to the news the investigation was being reopened. A Vatican spokesperson said “defamatory and baseless accusations” had been made against the Archbishop, “who has been dead for some time and is unable to defend himself.” The Vatican went on to criticize the media outlets reporting the story.
“We in no way wish to interfere with the duties of the magistrates in their rigorous verification of the facts and responsibilities. But at the same time, we cannot but express our extreme regret and reproof at methods of information that owe more to sensationalism than to the requirements of seriousness and professional ethics.”
Huh?
A a further postcript, Lorenzo Radogna, lawyer for the De Pedis family, announced on Italian tv channel La7 News ”the corpse of Enrico De Pedis will be cremated and removed from the grave in the Sant’Apollinare’s church,” but he did not provide any further information regarding the future place of the remains.
There was no mention if the police would be able to examine the coffin before it (and any evidence) was turned into ashes.
Prominent special interest lobbyist and evangelical preacher, James C. Dobson, is back in the news. He sharply attacked presidential candidate Barak Obama, accusing him of having “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and twisting the meaning of both the Old and New Testaments. 
“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Mr. Dobson said in one of the recent radio broadcasts for the group he leads, Focus on the Family.
He’s some kind of Biblical authority?” Mr. Dobson also asked.
Mr. Dobson’s remarks focused on a June 28, 2006 speech in which Mr. Obama mentioned passages from the Bible that he suggested were in conflict with present-day practices. Mr. Dobson made his criticisms shortly after Joshua Dubois, the Obama campaign’s religious affairs director, offered to meet with Focus on the Family leaders.
“Young conservative evangelicals seem more open to Obama’s ‘Christian’ message of caring for the poor, fighting genocide, health care for all and climate change,” David Brody, senior national correspondent of the Christian Broadcasting Network noted.
But so far, the attack seems to have backfired. Obama issued a strong response, and one supporter quickly created a website – jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com - that quotes Old Testament prophets, giving Dobson a Biblical wallop of his own.
It seems as if the Democrats have finally figured out what to do, when the Dobsons of the world try to paint them as faithless or anti-religious.
In the words of Jim Wallis, a politically liberal Christian activist, you have to go toe-to-toe with fundamentalists, carrying a Bible in one hand, and the Constitution in the other.
The June 9th New York Post ran the opinion piece “Marriage Fight Wastes Gay Dollars” by a man named David Benkof, who was identified as a “columnist for several gay newspapers and a blogger at GaysDefendMarriage.com. 
Benkof, 38, wrote he was against spending gay community dollars on the upcoming California vote on marriage. He believes the gay community, and the Human Rights Commission in particular, should use the cash they have raised for California PR to “achieve rights for same-sex couples who live in states that are much more hostile to gays and lesbians than California.” He dismissed the marriage initiative battle by saying “HRC is pushing for gays in San Francisco to be able to use their favorite term for their relationship.”
He chided the gay community for not routinely raising funds like “Catholics and African-Americans” to help out the poorest members of their communities. “We in the gay and lesbian movement have done a lousy job of paying attention to people who share our identify but lack the resources to hobnob at fancy diners.” He insinuated that now that the faces of AIDS and HIV infections are not wealthy white men, but poor and black men, the movement has moved on to other “more relevant” issues.
Since Mr. Benkof did not say anything about himself or his experiences in the article, one would assume, as I did, that he is a regular gay guy, someone active in the movement as a columnist, but who chooses to sound ideologically out-of-step, peevish or both. Since his righteous attitude both annoyed and piqued my interest, I decided to dig. Here’s what I found:
-David Benkof (born David Bianco) is not a columnist for several gay newspapers. He’s a freelancer who submits articles and opinion pieces. He does not have a regular gig with anyone, including the Dallas Voice.
-In 2003 Benkof, who had been raised as a Conservative Jew, became Orthodox. He stopped saving sex with men, and professed that “the liberal…approach to homosexuality and Judaism was completely bankrupt.”
-He now identifies not as a gay man, but as bisexual. “I believe that within a couple of years I’m probably going to be married with a growing family.”
-Benkof views heterosexuality as an integral part of the teachings of Judaism. “I rejected all the unsuccessful attempts to reconcile traditional Judaism with gay sex and gay relationships. And I decided to take more seriously the demands that I believe G-d has made on the Jewish people in terms of how we live out our sexual feelings.”
“I happen to believe that G-d has been clear to the Jewish people that we should be pursuing opposite-sex relationships, and particularly not having intercourse between two males.”
Since his orthodox awakening Benkof has become a strong opponent of same-sex marriage: “It insults the millions of Americans whose traditional faiths call on us to defend marriage as a central institution in society defined as a union between a man and a woman.”
Why didn’t he raise any of this in the Post article?
If it’s not made-up, Benkof has at least one Christian that agrees with him. “Mark” writes:
“David-thank you for creating this website and putting into words exactly what my partner and I believe. I am so sick of “gay” people acting like gayness is our one defining attribute. I am also an American and a Christian, to name a few. Demanding that marriage, which is a religious institution, be afforded to gay people regardless of the wishes of a vast majority will only cement in the minds of many that gays care only about their own self interests regardless of the potential or perceived damage our behavior and pet issues might have on society. Such egocentricity, thus, could lead to a great backlash by the vast majority of people, who regardless of what we want and hope, still find homosexuality disgusting on a personal level–not to mention immoral on a religious level–I fear that someday, in the not too distant future, my partner and I will have to pay a great price for the indulgences and egotism of the annointed leaders of today’s gay movement.”
Note: I haven’t been able to google any articles by David, five years now as a self-identified bisexual, on how the love and physical intimacy with a woman has been a gift of God for him.
Read more on David Benkoff here and here and here.
For Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional lawyer who often writes on religion in the public square, the situation had uncomfortable echoes of the last presidential election cycle –a priest refusing to give Communion to someone based on their political views.
This time, though, the stunned Massgoer turned away by a priest was Kmiec himself.
The former dean of Catholic University Law School was an architect of the Reagan administration’s stance against abortion. His pro-life credentials include serving as a keynote speaker at March for Life’s annual Rose Dinner a few years ago.
The story begins with Kmiec’s March 2008 endorsement of Barak Obama for president in an article published in Slate magazine.
“I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation from beyond its religious and racial divides and that he wants to return the United States to that company of nations committed to human rights,” Kmiec wrote. He noted that he and Obama disagree on “important fundamentals” including legislation about traditional marriage and that life begins at conception.
He followed up that piece by writing May 15 for Catholic Online. There Kmiec said his Obama endorsement “baffled my political pals; it infuriated some of my fellow Catholics.” Some bloggers declared he was “self-excommunicated,” he wrote, and Kmiec went on to describe being denied Communion at a meeting of a Catholic business group.
At the event, Kmiec wrote, the priest “excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of Communion.”
He said he was pleased to hear that Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony had weighed in on the matter, in comments by his spokesman, Tod Tamberg, first included in a National Public Radio report.
Tamburg told Catholic News Service that the priest’s action in refusing Communion to Kmiec “was absolutely indefensible” both as a matter of canon law and the policies and practices of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. “The archbishop’s office is well aware of the situation and will be responding in an appropriate manner,” he added.
Kmiec has drawn attention as one of the nation’s leading “Obamacons”-conservatives who find Obama’s call for a new approach to politics appealing.
Kmiec started life as a Democrat, but like many Catholic Democrats, he said he was profoundly attracted to Ronald Reagan. For Kmiec, five words in Reagan’s 1980 acceptance speech summarized the essence of a Catholic view of politics: “family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.”
But Kmiec has expanded that original view: “To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you have voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith,” he said.
A critic of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, Kmiec added that Catholics should heed “the broad social teaching of the church,” including its views on war.
Kmiec said his pastor convinced him not to let the Communion incident go unanswered.
“He told me, ‘You may be resilient, but another person to whom this happens, it may destroy their entire faith,’” Kmiec said.
By a vast majority, he said, most U.S. bishops and church leaders are consistently good teachers on the range of political responsibilities expected of Catholics. However, he added, “if we continue to use religion as a political weapon than we’ve failed.”
