(Pope Benedict XVI and Monsignor Georg Ganswein, on January 16, 2006 in Vatican City. Photo: Pool/Getty Images)

In a comment on a book review by Colm Toibin from the London Review of Books, Andrew Sullivan writes:

It seems pretty obvious to me – as it does to Angelo Quattrochi, whose book is reviewed by Toibin – that the current Pope is a gay man (just as it was blindingly clear that John Paul II was straight). I am not claiming that Benedict is someone who has explored his sexuality, or has violated his own strictures on the matter. There is absolutely no evidence of that, or of hypocrisy of any sort. But that does not mean that he isn’t gay. In fact, Ratzinger’s command that gay priests should actively lie about their orientation makes any public statement about this on its face lacking in credibility. But when you look at the Pope’s mental architecture (I’ve read a great deal of his writing over the last two decades) you do see that strong internal repression does make sense of his life and beliefs. At times, it seems to me, his gayness is almost wince-inducing. The prissy fastidiousness, the effeminate voice, the fixation on liturgy and ritual, and the over-the-top clothing accessories are one thing. But what resonates with me the most is a theology that seems crafted from solitary introspection into a perfect, abstract unity of belief. It is so perfect it reflects a life of withdrawal from the world of human relationship, rather than an interaction with it. Of course, this kind of work is not inherently homosexual; but I have known so many repressed gay men who can only live without severe pain in the world if they create a perfect abstraction of what it is, and what their role is in it. Toibin brilliantly explains this syndrome, why the church of old was so often such a siren call for gay men who could not handle their own nature. In Benedict, one sees a near-apotheosis of this type, what Quattrocchi describes as “simply the most repressed, imploded gay in the world.”

Toibin notes Ratzinger’s extremely close relationship with Georg Ganswein, his personal secretary, referred to by some priests I know as Gay.org ….

I come from a Catholic family, attended a parochial elementary school and a Catholic university, and have observed a number of gay priests at close quarters. Some were repressed and authoritarian like Ratzinger (see my 2007 essay on an anti-abortion activist here), but others were liberal and tolerant. I remember the warm embrace I received from one of the latter a decade ago in the dining room of the St. Thomas Monastery at Villanova University, my alma mater, when my family and I visited for the funeral of my uncle Joe, a theologian and former Vice President for Academic Affairs there. The priest recognized me from my undergraduate years two decades before, and seeing him again brought back a flood of memories of intellectual nurturing and mentoring, and plain human warmth, that leavened my time at college. We never directly discussed either his sexual orientation or my own, but it was an unspoken presence between us, and his own evident serenity was a great help to me during the privately turbulent period before my own coming out. Those memories remind me that being gay in the priesthood is not always associated with an authoritarian bent.

As to His Holiness, the video below includes, at the 2-minute mark, the scene where then-Cardinal Ratzinger rather daintily slapped the hand of ABC News reporter Brian Ross for his impertinence in asking about Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, who had been accused of the sexual abuse of young seminarians. The gesture is so gay.

Mike DeBonis at WaPo reports on what may be the most desperate piece of cynicism yet from the National Organization for Marriage:

Some Ward 5 residents today found a message in their mailbox from council candidate Delano Hunter: “Thousands of dollars from homosexual activists outside Ward 5 are attacking Delano Hunter because he supports our right to vote on whether the District legalizes ‘gay marriage,’” reads the mailer, which illustrates a river of cash flowing from “New York City” and “San Francisco” into the ward.

Hmm. If there’s “thousands of dollars” from New York City and San Francisco, it’s not flowing into the bank account of incumbent Harry Thomas Jr., who last year voted to legalize gay marriage.

Campaign finance records show that there have been no contributions from San Francisco deposited into the Thomas coffers. He has accepted $2,150 from individuals and groups from New York City, but there’s no evidence of the gay agenda — $500 came from pharma giant Pfizer, another $500 came from the Service Employees International Union, and $500 from midwifery advocate Ruth Lubic.

By the way, this message was brought to you by the National Organization for Marriage — a national lobby group that takes money from lots of folks from, well, outside Ward 5.

NOM’s capacity for ever-new levels of mendacity continues to amaze. Of course there’s no evidence of the “gay money” from SF and NYC that Maggie & Friends want Ward 5 voters to panic about, but plenty of evidence of NOM’s outside money trashing up northeast D.C. neighborhoods. We have had fun this year at GLAA Forum chronicling NOM’s march to political oblivion. Keep in mind that every dollar they spend here is a dollar that’s not being spent somewhere else where it might do more damage.

If you make it to one victory party on Primary Election night, make it to that of Councilmember Thomas. This one will be sweet.

HuffPo reports:

Huffington Post political reporter Sam Stein went on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight to discuss Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) recent comment on Meet the Press that he “takes [Obama] at his word” as being a Christian.

Sen. McConnell’s comment, which echoed Hilary Clinton’s 2008 jab that Obama was a Christian “as far as [she] knows,” came after a Pew poll found that over 30% of Republicans believe Obama is Muslim.

My first thought was: Has somebody gotten Sen. McConnell to deny that he’s gay? If not, people should keep asking him until he denies it. Then we can repeatedly say, “I take Senator McConnell at his word that he’s not gay.” Dan Savage had the same thought. But I’m glad that reporters quickly recalled that Hillary Clinton had used the same sleazy ploy during the 2008 primaries.

(Pope John Paul II meets with Muslim leaders on his trip
to Lebanon – Catholic World Report, July 1997)

Paul Moses at dotCommonweal shares a lesson from the late Pope John Paul II that I wish some of my angry fellow citizens would follow. It concerns JPII’s celebration of Mass in Bethlehem’s Manger Square ten years ago:

The pope had just finished his homily, ending with “Assalamu alaikum,” when the Muslim call to prayer broke forth from the loudspeakers at a mosque that bordered on Manger Square. It seemed, at first, like a rude intrusion on the historic Mass the pope was celebrating in the Jubilee year. But John Paul sat quietly and listened as the muezzin sang God’s praise; he seemed to be savoring the moment. It was as if the Muslim prayer mingled with the Mass.

Just before the Mass ended, it was announced that church and mosque officials had coordinated the call to prayer, which had been delayed to accommodate the pope’s homily. It was a small matter, really, but this cooperation stirred the crowd, mostly Arab Christians, to cheers, applause and even to tears. A sacred space had been shared, and everyone was the better for it.

A single voice may be small and faint, but it can make a difference. When it is joined by other voices, it can change the tone of a community, a city, a state, a country. We don’t have to accept a country of intolerance and fear. We can raise our voices against the current anti-Muslim tide, which is deeply damaging to the fundamental American value of religious freedom. This morning, I found it easy to donate to the Cordoba Initiative — which provides some excellent answers to frequently-asked questions.

(Hat tip: Zoe Pollock)

Josh Marshall points out that virtually all counter-terrorism professionals believe that the anti-Islamic controversy currently raging in American helps Osama bin Laden. As I say in my column this week, blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few only plays into the hands of the radicals. It’s back to Bush-Cheney: Republicans hurting our country for partisan gain, while spineless Democrats pander or hide under their desks.

There are exceptions, of course. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson are two Republicans who have taken sensible positions on the issue. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose Governor’s Island speech defending the Islamic Center was perhaps his finest moment, switched from Republican to Independent in 2007.

Democrats not hiding under their desks include U.S. Senate candidates Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias of Illinois, who are defending religious freedom and not hiding behind all the bullshit about sensitivity to the 9/11 families. I am sick to death of the widespread notion that we should forever allow ourselves to be held hostage to some people’s misdirected bitterness.

I am also sick of the phony protestation by opponents of the Islamic Center that they are not lumping all Muslims together. If they were not doing that, there would be no reason to take offense at a mosque being built near the WTC site any more than a church or a synagogue. Repeating the same lie a thousand times, especially in the echo chamber of the punditry, does not make it true.

AP reports:

Mexico City’s leftist mayor says he will take legal action if a Roman Catholic cardinal doesn’t apologize for suggesting he bribed the Supreme Court to uphold a city law allowing adoptions by same-sex couples.

Mayor Marcelo Ebrard says that if Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez does not apologize by midnight, he is going to file a slander complaint.

The church opposes the Mexico City law, but the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional.

Ebrard made the demand Tuesday after the cardinal suggested the justices may have been paid to uphold the law.

The cardinal used a word for corruption that refers to giving feed to cattle. The court has denied and condemned the accusation. Iniguez’s office had no immediate comment.

(Hat tip: Craig Howell. Photo of Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, Archbishop of Guadalajara)

My column this week looks at the anti-Muslim frenzy being whipped up by the right wing in connection with the proposed Cordoba House Islamic Center in lower Manhattan:

The recent controversy over the planned Islamic Center in lower Manhattan has led to a growing political assault on the Constitution that began by targeting the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision on birthright citizenship and now targets First Amendment religious freedoms. In the name of defending America, so-called conservatives are attacking its foundations — with Newt Gingrich even invoking Saudi Arabia as a model for religious policy.

The leader of the Cordoba Initiative, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate who condemned the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic and seeks to improve relations between Islam and the West. You would never know this to read Charles Krauthammer and Andrew Breitbart, who smear him with misrepresentations and guilt by association.

Many agree with Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman that, while the Cordoba Initiative has the right to build at 45 Park Place, it should desist out of sensitivity to 9/11 survivors. This overlooks the fact that Muslims were among the victims on 9/11. Muslims are our neighbors and co-workers. Indeed, lower Manhattan already has two mosques, one pre-dating the World Trade Center. They have to turn away worshippers for lack of space.

Infringing fundamental freedoms is too high a price for assuaging someone’s pain. Sensibilities do not trump the Free Exercise clause.

Read the whole thing, including a story about my own Muslim connection, here.

BuzzFeed offers a compilation.

(Hat tip: Jim Burroway)