Senator Brownback's recent statement regarding rape victims possibly being denied an abortion is troubling. And while it might play well with a small minority of religious Jacobins, it displays complete disrespect for followers of other faiths that do not oppose allowing their followers from seeking an abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Earlier this week I learned about Brownback's recent speech before the National Catholic Men's Conference, (as reported in the Houston Chronicle) where the 2008 presidential candidate rhetorically asked:

"Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?"

The senator from Kansas then answered his own question:

"We need to protect innocent life. Period," Brownback said.

This declaration reportedly brought the crowd of 500 to its feet.

Such a bold statement and the applause it garnered left me scratching my head. Yes, I too am a Catholic, but it led me to wonder a few things about audience members, especially if they had been born into a different gender. Would the National Catholic Men's Conference be so gung to outlaw abortion if any of them were the female victim of rape or incest? Heaven forbid, if in fact a wife daughter or aunt were to become pregnant as the result of a rape, would they still be so high-minded?

I think I can safely speak as representative of what most Catholic Americans would: suggesting that abortion be denied to a woman who has been raped is off-the-wall fanaticism, orthodoxy run amuck.   And while it might play well with a small minority of religious radicals, it displays complete disrespect for followers of other faiths who do not share such unusual views.

According to the Chronicle piece, Senator Brownback was introduced by Steve Wood, the president of Family Life Center International -- an organization that believes the Harry Potter series of book to be evil. And as part of that introduction Woods restated a familiar Catholic Right theme that speaks directly to respect of the Establishment Cause, criticizing Catholic politicians --such as, without apparently naming him, JFK -who fail to bring their faith into the elected offices they occupy.

Wood was quoted as saying,

"I don't know about you, but this stuff by many Catholic politicians who say, 'I'm personally opposed, but.' But what? You should have the integrity to be consistent in both the personal and public life."

Apparently for Mr. Wood and his featured speaker, bringing faith into public life requires going beyond the commonly held moralities of a pluralistic society. Instead, it means imposing the subjective morality (and a highly selective interpretation at that) of orthodox Catholicism over other faiths. It is in fact nothing more than the de facto establishment of a state religion.

Naturally, Senator Brownback is a darling of the Religious Right who counts among his supporters Priests for Life Father Frank Pavone as well Catholic Right moneyman Tom Monaghan. And as I have illustrated, he may have both Fidelis and the Catholic League tag-teaming potential opponents, particularly as of late the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani.

In Brownback they see a committed cultural warrior who has long opposed embryonic stem cell research even when  a clear majority of Americans, including Catholics desire for it to be federally funded. He is also an opponent of women's reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. Thus is comes as no surprise that the authoritarian Opus Dei is the source of his particular brand of Catholicism.

Brownback is also a member of The Fellowship, which Sourcewatch describes as "a humanitarian religious-right Christian organization about which very little is known."

Journalist Jeff Sharlet's article on the Kansas crusader in his January 25, 2006 Rolling Stone article shows that not only little known about The Fellowship, but that more should be known about the secretive, even cultic society:

One of the little-known strengths of the Christian right lies in its adoption of the "cell" -- the building block historically used by small but determined groups to impose their will on the majority. Seventy years ago, an evangelist named Abraham Vereide founded a network of "God-led" cells comprising senators and generals, corporate executives and preachers. Vereide believed that the cells -- God's chosen, appointed to power -- could construct a Kingdom of God on earth with Washington as its capital. They would do so "behind the scenes," lest they be accused of pride or a hunger for power, and "beyond the din of vox populi," which is to say, outside the bounds of democracy. To insiders, the cells were known as the Family, or the Fellowship. To most outsiders, they were not known at all.

"In his dream America," Sharlet continues, "the one he believes both the Bible and the Constitution promise, the state will simply wither away. In its place will be a country so suffused with God and the free market that the social fabric of the last hundred years -- schools, Social Security, welfare -- will be privatized or simply done away with."

As I observed in Part Twenty-seven of this series when discussing the same possible agenda existing among Opus Dei-influenced members of the U.S. Supreme Court:

This [Opus Dei's] agenda would infuse our common judicial system with a view of morality less based upon the notion of overlapping consensus and much more on a highly subjective form Catholic morality which looks to foreign head of state to inform American judicial philosophy. The foreign nation in question is the Vatican, a nation the United States recognizes and maintains diplomatic relations.  This is significant in part because while JFK was very clear that he would respect the separation of church and state in carrying out his responsibilities as president, adherents of Opus Dei and similar groups have a radically different view, as former Senator Santorum made crystal clear.

This goes beyond the separation of church and state.  It can be reasonably seen as the laws of sovereign state being imposed upon another. And it must be remembered that in the United States, sovereignty is vested in the people who through the democratic process make their elected leadership accountable to them. Vatican sovereignty, on the other hand, is vested in a pope -- a monarch elected from among about 100 top church officials who are themselves appointed by a monarch.

Much like Opus Dei founder JoseMaria Escriva' and devotee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Brownback believes that JFK's pledge he would not take orders from the Vatican has caused "much harm in America." This is, in fact, it is nothing more than neo-Carlism: the highly subjective belief that orthodox notions of Catholicism should be legislated as the stated morality of secular government - even if it results in state action that abridges the religious freedom of all others.

I, however, come to a very different conclusion than Brownback.  If he does ultimately reach the Oval Office, it will be his pledge to not to separate his faith from his actions that that will do the most harm to American democracy. It is nothing more than a pledge to refute JFK's legacy of respecting the Establishment Clause.

The Catholic Right: A Series, by Frank L. Cocozzelli :


Part One  Part Two  Part Three   Part Four  Part Five  Part Six   Intermezzo   Part Eight   Part Nine  Part Ten   Part Eleven   Part Twelve   Part Thirteen   Part Fourteen   Second Intermezzo   Part Sixteen   Part Seventeen   Part Eighteen   Part Eighteen   Part Nineteen   Part Twenty   Part Twenty-one   Part Twenty-two   Part Twenty-three   Part Twenty-four   Part Twenty-five   Part Twenty-six   Part Twenty-seven   Part Twenty-eight   Part Twenty-nine   Part Thirty   Part Thirty-one