Yesterday, U.S. Catholic’s Bryan Cones pointed out the obvious in a blog on the election of NY archbishop Timothy Dolan as president of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops: This is a really big deal and, shockingly, some really good religion reporters seem to be missing that fact. Cones doesn’t mince words:

This is truly unbelievable. Catholic right-wing bloggers pull off nothing less than a coup, and the bishops claim it was all about the “election process,” that is, the assumption that the vice president would become president. There can be no doubt that the pastoral voices in the conference are now silenced, and the more confrontational figures appointed by Pope John Paul II are in the driver’s seat. The election of a conference president may seem like so much “inside baseball,” but it is of profound significance.

The person doing the best reporting and analysis of this is probably Rocco over at Whispers in the Loggia, a guy who was never trained professionally as a reporter but has access to inside sources in the Church that no one else seems to have and built his blog-for-three into one of the most respected sources on Catholic news around. (You have to love his headline for yesterday’s story and a latter post’s headline is equally funny.) So not only do we have a story about a religion story that isn’t being reported real well by the traditional press, we have a story about how a blogger is doing a better job than traditional reporters. Sigh.

And what about Dolan’s attitude in this whole thing? It smacks of arrogance – something no one would ever accuse Tucson’s bishop of having. (Maybe that’s the problem: Maybe Kicanas is just too dang nice. Too darn pastoral. Too thoughtful and not enough hellfire and damnation.) While Dolan said the vote came as a shock, the picture in the New York Times of him laughing with another bishop shows something a little other than shock – especially considering the apparent blogosphere campaign to keep Kicanas from being elected – especially reporting the Rainbow Sash Movement’s endorsement of Kicanas.

(Note to Rainbow Sash folks: You need a to hire a proof-reader before you send out a press release and, outside groups don’t endorse bishops to lead the conference.)

Then there’s the statement Dolan made about his standing in the election three year’s ago when Kicanas was elected VP:

When asked to accept a nomination as one of 10 candidates for president, (Dolan) said that “in all candor you automatically think in terms of being vice president. How to interpret that? I don’t know. I do know that the bishops hold Bishop Kicanas in the highest esteem. It was hardly like a landslide election.” Three years ago in the USCCB election for vice president, Bishop Kicanas “beat me by one vote,” he said, adding that nobody is “a shoo-in.”

Why would he add that last sentence? Who would even remember what happened three years ago – unless, of course, you’ve got a little bit more politician in you than you’d like the faithful to recognize. Then again, maybe Dolan’s going to be a great Church leader. We’ll have to wait and see, but one thing is for certain: As Cones said – this is a big deal.

If you’re up on the news this morning you’ve heard that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops went against

Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas

precedent and voted against elevating Tucson’s Catholic bishop to president of the group.

Gerald F. Kicanas, who came to Tucson to lead the diocese’s 350,000 Catholics nearly 10 years ago, received 111 votes to the 128 votes received by New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan. The Times called it a “surprise pick” and labeled Kicanas as representing the “more liberal ‘social justice’ tradition of the American Church.” Normally, I think New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein is spot-on on her reporting, and maybe she’ll fill out the piece more as the day goes on, but right now it is in great need of some nuance. Let Godblogging supply just a tad.

First, Kicanas is about as “liberal” as I am pope. He’s a moderate that leans slightly right. Trust me, I used to write for the Catholic paper here, and as a columnist, my views were moderate and leaning slightly left. I’ve spent plenty of time chatting with him about various issues and more times than not, Kicanas sides with (or at least gives in to) the more “conservative” wing of the Church.

Second, saying that a Bishop who supports the Church’s longheld teaching on sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry and welcoming the immigrant is “liberal” is just poor reporting. Kicanas is right down the middle on that one; simply because some conservatives see abortion as more important than other forms of social justice doesn’t mean other forms of social justice are liberal – or, God forbid, less.

Let’s give Kicanas the liberal test: Does he support women’s ordination? Nope. Optional celibacy for priests? Nope. Married clergy? Nope. Ordaining openly gay men? Nope. Does he fight abortion? Yes. Does he fight euthanasia? Yes. Does he fight war? yes. He is, in other words, pro-life, not just anti-abortion, and sits – for the most part – squarely in the moderate middle, for which many a Tucson Catholic is grateful.

But because he doesn’t fall off the cliff and refuse communion to politicians who support abortion rights, apparently some in the conference think he’s too liberal. That and the fact that groups like BishopsAccountability.org reared their heads and brought up the one thing they could find on Kicanas – that he approved the ordination of a man whom BishopsAccountability.org says Kicanas knew molested a minor. Kicanas denies knowing about the minor and knowing Kicanas – and having held him over a hot iron as a pretty aggressive reporter myself – I’m certain he didn’t. Did he make a stupid decision (as so many priests in leadership did 20 years ago) in allowing a guy was caught having sex with other seminarians to stay in the seminary? I’d say yes. But you know what, then I’d be accused of being biased against homosexuals in the priesthood. You can’t win for losing with that one.

But I digress. Point is, the conference may or may not have wanted to have the whole sex scandal brought up again and that may be why they voted for Dolan (although he’s obviously not clean as a whistle in that area either). But more likely than not, this vote has to do with abortion,  homosexuality and politics. Kicanas has not refused communion to politicians who say they support legalized abortion rights in some form or fashion, unlike other bishops who have said they would deny communion to such politicians. Ditto for politicians who are out and proud with support of same-sex marriage.

I’m fairly certain that if a group of let’s-abort-all-the-babies-we-can politicians showed up at the Cathedral en masse to make a statement by trying to receive communion, Kicanas would deny them. He would not be denying them because they were pro-abortion rights politicians, per se, but because they were showing up to mock the sacrament.

Some may say that a politician who supports abortion rights (or, the other bugaboo in the Bishops’ Conference, same-sex marriage) is mocking the sacrament. Yet, that is not the case. One can personally be against an evil and still think there is another way to end it other than ONLY through legislation. (Yes, really, people can think this.) In the end, the receipt of communion is between every individual and God. Period. Kicanas gets that. Apparently, the Bishops’ Conference – full of completely sin-free men, no doubt – doesn’t.