AMERICA:A LIFELONG anti-abortion activist and opponent of gay rights who worked for Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, law professor Douglas Kmiec is one of the most prominent lay figures in the American Catholic Church.
A former dean of the law school at the Catholic University of America, he received a shock earlier this year at a Mass for Catholic businessmen when the priest denounced him angrily from the pulpit and refused to serve him when he came forward for Communion.
Kmiec's wife fled the church in tears and others at the Mass were embarrassed by the priest's attack on the professor, who was due to address the businessmen later that day.
Kmiec's offence was that he is supporting Barack Obama in November's presidential election, although he has made clear that he is backing him despite the Democrat's position in favour of abortion rights.
The incident, which has alarmed liberal Catholics, is the latest twist in a long-running controversy about the place of the altar rail as a political battleground.
In 2004, some Catholic bishops said Democratic candidate John Kerry, a Catholic, should not receive Communion because of his position on abortion.
More recently, Kansas archbishop Joseph Naumann told the state's governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, to stop taking Communion because of her "actions in support of legalised abortion".
When Pope Benedict XVI visited Washington this year, some conservatives suggested that Catholic politicians who oppose banning abortion should be refused Communion, but the pontiff gave the sacrament to everyone who came forward, including liberal Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy.
The Kmiec case represents a ratcheting upwards of the controversy because he was targeted not as a politician but as a voter, raising questions about whether any Catholic who votes for Obama in November can receive Communion.
In a statement called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship last November, US bishops offered some guidance to Catholic voters.
"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favour of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position," they said.
Kmiec should have been in the clear because he has stated publicly that he is backing Obama despite their disagreement on abortion and because he believes the Democrat is in tune with Catholic social teaching in other respects.
"I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him on his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides, and that he wants to return the United States to that company of nations committed to human rights," Kmiec wrote earlier this year, adding that he was drawn to Obama's "love thy neighbour" style of campaigning and his "appreciation for faith".
Obama has sought to reach out to faith groups more energetically than most Democrats, encouraging supporters to form discussion groups on faith and politics and speaking frequently about his personal spiritual journey.
Catholic leaders have been unimpressed, however, and when I mentioned Obama's name over lunch with an archbishop last year, the prelate's eyes narrowed.
"He has great charism [ sic]," he said.
"But he is not with us. He's not with us on life; he's not with us on marriage; and he's not with us on schools."
When I asked about Hillary Clinton, whose name had once been a byword for liberal secularism, the archbishop softened. "Mrs Clinton is a very thoughtful person," he said.
Kmiec believes that Obama is neutral on the question of government's role in abortion, leaving it to a woman's conscience and the medical situation, and he believes Catholics should look at the bigger picture.
"Catholic voters are asked to consider what other social
goods Obama represents and whether they can honestly and openly say that they are supporting him for that reason and not his stand on abortion," he wrote last week.
"It is important to both reaffirm civility and the related principles of religious freedom that refute gleeful crusades, at home or abroad, to single out supposed apostasy where none exists.""