d   o   w   n       t   h   e       p   i   k   e

1. Yes, I'm giving it another try. With a new name. More on which later.

2. Following up on my promise, I'll be voting for Konnie Lukes tomorrow. I only see two credible mayoral prospects, and one of them lost my vote several months ago. I wish Dennis Irish had stayed in the race. More on this later.

3. A lot in the blogosphere last month about Holy Cross' decision to host a conference that included Planned Parenthood. A lot of Catholics, including the Bishop, are angry about this, and they're saying a lot of angry things. Like this:

This is a shame. Holy Cross is not an option for Roman Catholic parents of Roman Catholic children. The neutral ground of Clark University seems a better option.

Two points I feel I must make: First, Holy Cross has not changed much since I graduated. I was on campus for September 11, 2001, and remember the outpouring of faith and Christian brotherhood on that day. I do not believe I would have experienced such a faith-oriented Catholic community at any other college in New England -- including Catholic colleges; including Jesuit colleges. I do not believe I would have had a college experience where my faith was welcomed and reaffirmed at any other college of Holy Cross' caliber, nationwide. Let me say that again: If you are serious about an Ivy League-quality education, and serious about going to school in a place where morality is not passe and where Catholicism can be discussed without irony or cynicism, I believe Holy Cross is the best place you can go. I still believe this.

Second: The recent brouhaha over Planned Parenthood is nothing but a repeat of the 2003 (or sometime around then) bishop-versus-college tussle over Chris Matthews being invited to speak. I continue to agree more with the college administration than with the hypocritical stance of the diocesan leadership and the breast-beating ultra-Catholics on this one.

In both cases, Holy Cross invited speakers associated with pro-choice ideas onto campus. Arguably the Matthews case was "less severe," because he isn't an actual abortionist, which Planned Parenthood is. Then again, arguably the Planned Parenthood invitation was less severe, because they were at a conference that was simply using the college as a function hall, whereas Matthews was speaking to students and families at graduation.

Either way, the criticism of the college is that folks who preach against church doctrine shouldn't be allowed to speak on Catholic college campuses. I believe this opinion is both hypocritical and wrong.

Hypocritical because, in most cases, the folks who get excited about pro-choicers speaking at college campuses conveniently forget to get excited when other heretics come to town. Where's the outrage that Holy Cross has (or had, when I was there) a College Republicans club? Didn't Republicans get us into an unjust war? My point isn't to pick on Republicans -- I am one -- but simply to note that if deviance from church teaching is grounds for exclusion, then certain conclusions follow, and one of those conclusions is that just about anyone but a tight-lipped bishop, or a "my pope, right or wrong" ultra-Catholic, has to shut up when stepping onto Mount St. James. Of course, the rule is never applied except by the ultras to persons deemed "liberal."

Wrong because it's a Tridentine concept, an "error has no rights" concept, such as has been repudiated by Vatican II. Since the 1960s -- more than 40 years have passed! -- Catholics work with communists in Italy, we join interfaith groups and dialogue with Protestants who once called our Holy Father the antichrist, we commission theologians and lay panels to assist our clergy in reforming church teaching on thorny issues such as contraception. My point here isn't to say that we need to reform our teaching on abortion, but simply to note that if "error has no rights," then certain conclusions follow, and one of these conclusions is that intellectual inquiry into church doctrine -- and the freedom of speech that such inquiry demands -- must be suppressed.

This is the 21st century, and we are a long way out of the Dark Ages. The faith I profess every Sunday holds that we are all sinners, and that our various sins -- in our thoughts or in our deeds -- do not make us less Catholic. The church I support every Sunday admits theologians who agree on the Trinity, saving grace, the divinity of Jesus, the power of the sacraments and the divine truth of the Bible; and, in many cases, little else -- and this does not make us less Catholic, only more human.

Can we put an end to the jump-on-Konnie dogpile Worcester's been living through ever since the Boy Mayor became Lieutenant Governor-elect? It started as a political sidebar to the Murray campaign, and that was fine. We all got a chuckle out of the fact that if Tim Murray had to leave the mayor's office, his biggest political rival on the City Council would become mayor. Great second-day storyline.

But it's gotten ridiculous, now that Konstantina Lukes is starting to measure drapes. And (not for the first time) I feel sorry for our mayor-designate. She's no longer just the leader of the opposition; now she's the Mitt Romney of Worcester.

We reached the tipping point Monday, when T&G columnist Clive McFarlane decided to probe the issue. His editors gave the column the subhead "Contrarian persona won't help the city," but he mostly lets his sources do the talking, rather than drawing conclsions himself. Rather than wading into the argument himself, he hedges: "... right or wrong, Ms. Lukes has generally been cast as someone who pokes holes in the plans of colleagues, rather than someone who works with her colleagues to create better plans."

We'll get to those casting agents in a moment. I'd like to note that I do not know Konnie Lukes, aside from what I read in the paper. I did vote for her as mayor in 2005, so I'm part of why she's where she is now. I like that she stood against the St. Patrick's Day Massacre -- whether or not firing the city manager was the right move, it was being done far too shadily and I'm glad three councilors decided to point that out.

But Konnie does more in her unofficial role as leader of the opposition. And her critical eye has Councilor Frederick Rushton worried. That's the same Rushton who, as someone with "his own eyes on the mayor's position" in 2007, notes McFarlane, has no ulterior motive.

Mr. Rushton said, “When the mayor walks into a room, he has to be the physical embodiment of our vibrant present and our vibrant future.

“You talk about the many ways the city is on the move,” he said. “You don’t focus on dreams being broken. When I look at Main Street, I don’t see empty buildings. I see a spot for a café, a spot for an upscale boutique and the next spot a potential start for another Microsoft-like company.”

Rushton was referring, said McFarlane, to Lukes' self-identified "cynical" statements to Banker & Tradesman, which included: "I’ve been a public official since 1980 and I’ve seen too many promises broken and dreams shattered."

Well, I'm not ready to give up on Konnie becuase she's a realist. She took on the council role of loyal opposition, or devil's advocate, and in so doing kept the rest of the council honest. As mayor, she'll need to change her tune, but I don't see any reason why she can't.

Put this way: as mayor, Tim Murray was supposed to be a staunch booster for Worcester, to try to squeeze every last penny out of the state coffers, possibly at the expense of Boston or the towns. As lieutenant governor, he needs to adopt a more global view. Nobody seems to be doubting that he can do this.

As for Rushton, he's lost my (potential) vote for mayor next year. Chucking bombs at the incoming mayor before she's had a chance to set her own tone -- especially with such transparent motives -- doesn't sit well. Nor does his rah-rah conception of what a mayor does (it's worth noting that in Worcester, unlike some other cities, the mayor is the chairman of the City Council and School Committee -- really a chief legislator, not an executive). The mayor has to be both a visionary and a realist. If Rushton feels only a "vibrant present," and doesn't see empty buildings on Main Street, he's not looking at the Worcester I live in.

If he can find that "spot for an upscale boutique," maybe he should run for mayor there.

First off, a note from Captain Obvious: If it's true that the a prominent same-sex marriage opponent physically assaulted an activist from the other side in Worcester this weekend, then the the accused assaulter -- Larry Cirignano of Canton, according to the Telegram & Gazette -- should apologize, resign his post, and, if the victim prefers, stand trial. There's no room for physical hurt in a group called Catholic Citizenship.

That said, I spent the day today deleting more-breathless-by-the-minute e-mails from KnowThyNeighbor.org, a group that would prefer to say it's pro-marriage rights for all, although it's more accurate to say the group is anti-people who are anti-marrige rights for all.

So the facts of the case, as asserted by the Telegram's Richard Nangle (who was there) and KnowThyNeighbor.org, are that one "Sarah Loy, a 27-year-old marriage equality supporter" from Worcester, attempted to make her position known during a Saturday rally at City Hall. Surrounded by green "Let the People Vote!" sign-toters, she carried placard reading "No discrimination in the Constitution." Allegedly, Cirignano at this point asked her to leave, grabbed her by the shoulders and pushed her to the ground.

Well, faster than you can say "Ronal C. Madnick," in swooped Tom Lang of KnowThyNeighbor.org, updating all us newsmedia folk about the progress of the case throughout the weekend and Monday.

Here's an excerpt from my favorite press release-slash-blog post of the day:

Lang, who attended all four of the so-called "Democracy Rallies" held over the last week by anti-gay marriage activists, reacted by saying, "The attack on Ms. Loy was nasty and disgraceful. Mr. Cirignano should be ashamed and has shown that he doesn't belong in a leadership position."

Hey, no problem so far, although I'm not a huge fan of the "sneer quotes" around "Democracy Rallies." But KnowThyNeighbor.org's base principles dictate that they have to call the constitution-amending process "undemocratic," so let's let that one go. The best part is the next paragraph:

Lang said that he wasn't totally surprised by this act of violence noting that "the rhetoric and actions of the anti-gay marriage activists has reached a fever pitch since their amendment was sidelined by the 109 legislators that voted to recess the Constitutional Convention." He notes that VoteOnMarriage.org, sponsor of the anti-gay marriage amendment, has even printed Wild West, Dead-or-Alive-style Wanted posters that have the legislators' photos and home phone numbers on them. And the legislators' home addresses have been posted on the VoteOnMarriage.org website where anti-gay marriage supporters are instructed to urge the legislators to take a vote "or face the potential consequences."

Paying attention, kids? This is where Tom Lang uses an allegedly criminal action -- assault on Main Street -- to introduce a talking point in which he actually criticizes activists (not the "right kind" of activists, of course) for telling voters how to contact their legislators and drawing attention to legislators' public, roll call votes.

Let's get this straight. Tom Lang of KnowThyNeighbor.org is "not surprised" that a conservative turned violent, because conservative groups posted public information about officials we elected in an effort to publicize public votes taken by those elected officials. This is allegedly a warning sign of Gestapo tactics to come.

What, then, do we make of KnowThyNeighbor.org's most famous site feature -- the one that gave this organization its name? The one they simply call "The List"?

Everyone who signed the petition asking for a constitutional amendment vote on same-sex marriage had his or her name recorded by the Secretary of State's office; and every one of those names is now publicly posted on KnowThyNeighbor.org. There are 11 pages of names in my ZIP Code alone (and I'm not one of them).

So are we to be "not surprised" if mobs of gays start pushing around any straights who wander into Provincetown or Northampton?

Or can we all -- unlike hotheads like Cirignano and Lang -- simply discuss this thing rationally and make it a true "rally for democracy" on both sides?