In a mellow state The lack of local debate about controversial pronouncements by some Catholic officials reflects the changing profile of the church in Rhode Island BY IAN DONNIS

AGENERATION AGO, it wasn’t uncommon for the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and public-minded Catholic women in Rhode Island to clash in dramatic, headline-grabbing battles. After winning respective office as attorney general and a state representative, for instance, Sisters of Mercy Arlene Violet and Liz Morancy were told to choose between holding office and remaining as nuns (they chose the former, thank you very much). In an even more striking example, the church in 1985 excommunicated Mary Ann Sorrentino, the executive director of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, because of her occupation.

Now, 44 years after anti-Catholic voices questioned whether Rome would exercise undue influence on Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, a leading Vatican official said in April that priests should not offer Communion to politicians who back abortion rights — a statement with clear implications for John F. Kerry and other Democrats. On May 5, Michael J. Sheridan, the bishop of Colorado Springs, took things a step farther, indicating in a pastoral letter that regular parishioners should be denied Communion if they vote for elected officials who support same-sex marriage, euthanasia, abortion, or stem-cell research.

In striking contrast, however, to the charged battles that played out between the church and local public figures in the ’80s, this latest controversy has barely caused a ripple in Rhode Island, the most Catholic state in the nation, where parishes remain routinely employed as driving landmarks and a preponderance of the politicians are Catholic. "It really hasn’t been a discussion up here at the State House," says one source. "Everyone is talking about Blue Cross and gambling."

This isn’t to say that local officials are eager to talk about this issue. With the notable exception of US Representative James Langevin, a pro-life Democrat who supports stem-cell research, the state’s high-profile Catholic politicians — including Governor Donald L. Carcieri, Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty, Attorney General Patrick Lynch, US Senator Jack Reed, US Representative Patrick Kennedy, House Speaker William Murphy, House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, and Senate President Joseph Montalbano — declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.

For his part, Langevin joined 47 House colleagues in writing in early May to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, noting, according to the Washington Post, "For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope . . . While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome." (The congressmen wrote to McCarrick since he leads a task force of church officials examining whether the church should take action against Catholic officials who part from Catholic doctrine.)

Langevin tells the Phoenix that he believes statements such as Sheridan’s will drive wedges into the church community, rather than bringing people together. And like other critics, he notes, "I have to say I find it interesting which issues the church has chosen as a litmus test. These are Republican issues. It’s interesting to see which ones they’ve chosen to pay attention to and which ones to ignore."

By contrast, Greg McCarthy, Reed’s spokesman, offered a fairly typical response in explaining the senator’s decision not to comment. "He has always endeavored to maintain a separation between his duties to the people of Rhode Island and his personal religious beliefs," McCarthy says. "To comment on the policy of the Catholic Church and how it impacts voters would blur that distinction."

Fogarty spokeswoman Sue Pegden would say only: "He’s declined to comment on it. I can’t elaborate."

Lynch, who in February hosted an ecumenical "Celebration of Justice," at the First Baptist Church in America for eight former attorneys general, isn’t commenting, says spokesman Michael Healey, because, "It’s a matter of church policy, not of state law. At the end of the day, the attorney general’s job is to enforce state law, not to comment on what may become church policy." Asked whether the decision not to comment contradicted the AG’s involvement in the "Celebration of Justice," Healey says, "I would say that it was a civil celebration, or a civil event, that tried to include representatives of as many faiths as possible."

Even Kennedy, a nephew of JFK and someone who has clashed with the church on the issue of same-sex marriage, "just does not feel particularly comfortable talking about this," says his spokesman, Ernesto Anguilla. "His relationship with the church is a very personal thing for him."

It’s difficult to know whether there might be something more to why these public officials are reluctant to comment. As the old expression goes, if you don’t want to start an argument, don’t talk about politics or religion, and this subject combines the two in potentially provocative fashion. Liz Morancy, who served as a state representative from Providence’s Elmwood section from 1978-88, notes, "When I was involved, a lot of the elected officials were afraid to take the opposite position from the hierarchy because they felt it would hurt them politically, but that was way back in the ’80s. Maybe they just don’t want to get into an antagonistic situation with the church officials."

Regardless, the dynamic between the local Roman Catholic Church and Rhode Island politicians is clearly quite different from what it was like a generation ago — in part because of the loss of moral authority that came with widely publicized sex abuse scandals, but also the different leadership style of officials such as Bishop Robert E. Mulvee.

In the ’80s, Morancy recalls, "Abortion was a real hot issue. I had a pro-choice record. When I met with [former] Bishop [Louis] Gelineau at the beginning of the controversy [over nuns serving in public office], he cited my pro-choice voting record. I don’t feel in a pluralistic society that you can legislate that . . . That, to me, is not responsible public policymaking."

It made for something of an auspicious watershed in the land of Roger Williams, though, when voters resounding defeated a church-backed non-binding anti-abortion referendum in 1986. Within five years, Rhode Island — one of only 11 states currently without a Defense of Marriage Act — was a relatively early adapter of a law banning discrimination against gays and lesbians. After the 1986 referendum, "I think the attitude and posture of the Catholic Church in the state changed dramatically for the better," says Maureen Moakley, chairwoman of the political science department at the University of Rhode Island. "There seems to have developed a live-and-let-live attitude, where Catholic politicians are all over the board on these doctrinal issues."

In terms of the widespread sex abuse scandals involving priests, the Diocese of Providence seems to not have taken part in the kind of stonewalling found elsewhere, Moakley says, and was willing to settle relatively expeditiously. Mulvee has also been subdued, particularly compared to some church officials in Massachusetts, in commenting on the same-sex marriage issue (the gay and lesbian has also been somewhat low-key). In Rhode Island, as Moakley notes, "Nominally at least, a lot of the gay people are Catholic, so it’s part of their flock."