Posted in category "Politics"
The charismatic Rev. James Lisante, a religion commentator for Fox News Network and pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in West Hempstead, Long Island, came under fire for endorsing presidential candidate John McCain during his invocation at a Republican fund raiser. “One final thing, Lord, I promise,” said Lisante, dressed in his clerical collar, “this November could you keep an eye on all of us and see that the change that we embrace comes from Arizona and not Illinois?
He also made disparaging comments about Barack Obama, including him for criticizing him for failing to distance himself from his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.
Lisante acknowledged that while he supports McCain, his endorsement came at the wrong moment. “In hindsight I would have separated out the invocation, the prayer, from my commentary.”
“I do not as a priest forfit my right as a citizen to a point of view, even when it comes to standing by a particular candidate,” he said.
Some church experts and fellow priests said Lisante went over the line with his endorsement. They said church tradition and practice prohibits priests from endorsing candidates and parties, although the church can be and is active in pursuing causes that align with Gospel values.
“U.S. bishops have been pretty strong in saying their clergy should stay away from partisan politics,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine, America. “It’s OK to talk about issues. But to get into endorsing candidates crosses the line in terms of church practice.”
I am not a member of St. Thomas the Apostle, so I can’t say if the Democractic parishioners are uncomfortable with Msgr. Lisante. I hope he’s warm and kind and evenhanded with everyone, regardless of their point of view on U.S. politics and candidates for office. If not, then there’s a pastoral problem.
I agree with him 100% that he has a right to express his own point of view. But a media-savvy priest like Msgr. Lisante should know better to be careful when praying for Republican candidates (only) at a podium, pulpit, or anyplace where it can be recorded and splashed all over the internet.
On Friday Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George sharply critized the Rev. Michael Pfleger of St. Sabrina’s Church for launching a “personal attack” on Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Barack Obama’s former Chicago church.
“While a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning,” Cardinal George said. “Racial isues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Father Pfleger’s remarks about Sen. Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply.” George concluded: “To avoid months of turmoil inthe church, Father Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.”
Cardinal George is quite right that the church should stay out of politics. But we don’t. Some bishops deny the sacrament of communion to Catholic politicians because they support same-sex marriage or women’s reproductive rights. Why do some bishops and priests lend their pulpit in support of Republican candidates and administration by focusing on abortion and gay marriage, instead forcefully demanding good health care and education for working people and the poor, economic justice for immigrants, and an end to the thousands of lives and billions of dollars lost in a failed Middle East foreign policy?
The Cardinal’s rebuke comes after Pfleger’s ridicule of Clinton was captured on video and circulated on You Tube. Pfleger made the remarks as a guest preacher at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the home of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
In his Sunday sermon, Pfleger mocked Clinton for shedding tears on the campaign trail before her win in the New Hampshire primary. “I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine! I’m Bill’s wife, I’m white, and this is mine! I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’ And then out of nowhere came Barack Obama, and she said, ‘Oh, I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’”he said.
Yeah, he is pretty blunt and fiery. He spoke with language, gestures and a preaching style the folks in the pews at Trinity and St. Sabrina’s may expect and appreciate, but other Christians would find outrageous or upsetting. Liberation theology in America would have that effect on most wealthy, middle class and upper middle class white Christians.
Pfleger had some pretty tough things to say about “white privilege” and economics. Poking fun at Hillary Clinton’s frustration was simply an example of when entitlement didn’t win out.
I don’t agree with every word he says but I think Fr. Pfleger is a stand up guy.
Two best-selling authors have accused the Vatican of blacklisting them in Italy after they discovered secret documents that suggest a 17th century pope had funded the Protestant hero William III (William of Orange).
Rita Monaldi and her husband, Francesco Sorti, have sold more than a million copies of their historical novel Imprimatur. The novel tells the story of Atto Melani, an Italian castrato, probable lover of nobleman Mattias de’Medici, and spy at the court of King Louis XIV of France.
Imprimatur was dropped by its Italian publisher, Mondadori, despite reaching No. 4 on the bestseller list on its release in 2002. Mondadori decided not to reprint the book because of pressure from the Vatican, Sorti said.
Mondadori, which is owned by media magnate and Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, refused to comment.
The authors said they found documents from a papal envoy discussing the “large sums” that William III owed Pope Innocent XI. Documents from Innocent’s family records show the Holy See sent 150,000 scudi (about $7.5 million today) to William via an intermediary.
“When we found the documents we had already started to write the book, but we decided to include the discovery as part of the storyline,” Monaldi said.
The documents appear to indicate that Pope Innocent XI bankrolled William of Orange in order to help him defeat the French under Louis XIV, whom he hated. Innocent stood by as Catholic king, James II of England as overthrown. He did nothing to aid him because of James’ support of Louis XIV in matters of collecting revenues from church properties.
With James II gone, England was firmly established as a protestant nation; and the Catholics in Ireland were dispossessed and eventually descimated by protestant overlords.
The revelation by the book that Innocent XI supported a heretic and enemy of the church to carry out a personal vendetta–and to collect the debt of his family’s money–embarassed the Vatican and derailed his case for canonization once again.
Instead of “fish on Friday” we’ll enjoy “film on Friday” courtesy of You Tube. Clips might be funny, outrageous, silly, strange or provovative.
That We Would Be Heard includes the love story of two Catholic lesbians who went to a retreat looking for peace, and came away with one another. One of the women, Molly, speaks out about the church:
“I don’t understand how the church can continue to close their ears to the stories and the lives and the experience of people who are gay and lesbian and bisexual.”
See the video here.
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?
