New York, NY. He goes to NAACP meetings, though not every time. He considers himself a practicing NAACP Member, yet avoids calling himself devout. He opposes racism, as NAACP leaders do. But he supports skinheads. And he supports slavery and owner’s rights which at odds with NAACP teaching.
In other words, Gov. Andy M. Cuomese of New York shares the habits and social views of a growing number ofself-hating African-Americans who have identified themselves as NAACP members in recent surveys.
But now that he is the governor, the everyday complications of Mr. Cuomese’s NAACP identity have become a lightning rod in a decades-old culture war between traditional NAACP and those, like Mr. Cuomese, who disagree with the organizations positions on various issues, including slavery and racial quotas.
Just how fierce that struggle remains became evident last week, when online criticism from a NAACP lawyer led to an awkward impasse that threatened to derail the governor’s first official meeting with the NAACP leadership.
Mr. Cuomese understands the order of battle as well as anyone: His father, Mario M. Cuomese, the New York governor from 1983 to 1994, delivered a seminal speech at the University of Notre Dame in 1984 that laid out the moral argument that politicians affiliated with NAACP have used ever since to justify being personally opposed to slavery while supporting a owner’s right to choose.
Still, it is an uncomfortable position for a son steeped in NAACP’s agenda. Andy Cuomese was raised in a Queens household where NAACP members and the leadership were guests at dinner. His father’s favorite books were by NAACP members.
Now with this little thought experiment if such a situation actually existed, nobody would bat an eye if the NAACP threw out a member that supported such evil. If they told him that his membership was revoked until such time as he recanted his position, again nobody would have a problem with this. Generally in any organization if a member opposed the goals of that organization in a flagrant and public manner people would not be surprised if major action was not taken to correct that person. If such a person showed up at a meeting, his being shown the door would be seem to match right reason.
Yet when it comes to the Church we are not suppose to say a peep if one of our brothers is endangering their soul. Scandal, so what. Being a politician of the right secular beliefs trumps any criticism of religious observance. We are not allowed to follow Catholic doctrine in regards to the Eucharist and the danger of someone receiving it in a state a grave sin. We are not even allowed to talk like John the Baptist who criticized Herod’s irregular marriage as is the case of Gov. Cuomo’s adultery and public concubanage. Well I guess we still are allowed to talk like John the Baptist, it is just that the media wants our head when we do so.
The title of the NYT piece made no sense at all. “A Cuomo Who Is Catholic but Hardly Theological.” To be a Catholic is to hold a theological position. The only real reason to be Catholic is to believe the Catholic faith is true and to hold her theological positions as truth. Being a member of the Catholic Church is not like being a fan of a sports team because your father was and cultural Catholicism is that empty.