Newt Gingrich came to town yesterday. In the morning, he spoke to a breakfast gathering in Boston hosted by Catholic Citizenship; in the evening, he was at Harvard to speak at the Kennedy School. Gingrich, of course, is an interesting figure for a lot of reasons; I wanted to talk with him about his recent conversion to Catholicism, and the film he is now making about Pope John Paul II's 1979 visit to Poland. The interview was pretty limited -- I had seven minutes with him at the venerable Union Club on Beacon Hill -- but here's what he had to say in that period of time:

Q: Can you first tell me why you wanted to become a Catholic?
A: I don't know that I wanted to become a Catholic so much as I became a Catholic. I don't know that it was volitional in that sense. Having gone to the basilica (The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, in Washington) with my wife, who sings in the choir there, for about a decade, I think it gradually grew on me. And when Pope Benedict came to the basilica for vespers with the bishops, and my wife and the choir were singing, and I was allowed to come as a spouse -- I had been talking with Monsignor Rossi, who is the rector of the basilica, for about five years, just about faith, and secularism, the challenges we have in the modern world with our civilization, and that afternoon seeing Pope Benedict XVI fairly close up, and both really believing in his central theme of 'Christ Our Hope,' and seeing the joy in his eyes, fundamentally different than the news media portrait of a severe German intellectual, something in me just was triggered. And I said to Monsignor Rossi that night that I wanted to convert. And we spent the following six or eight months studying with Monsignor Rossi, and it was more a process of becoming more and more comfortable that this was -- this is -- the place that I belong, and the taking of the Eucharist is the experience that enriches my life.

Q: How did you think about Catholicism, growing up among Protestants?
A: I grew up all over the world. I was born in Pennsylvania, and was raised originally as a Lutheran, and then was, my dad was in the Army, so I was whatever the Protestant chaplain was. I was at one point a Presbyterian acolyte. And I think, as a professional historian, you can't study modern European history without some sense of the church, and the sense of the depth and the history of the church. I think, probably from the time I was a child, when my dad was stationed in France…this sense of the -- I may use the word wrong -- but the sense of the magisterium of the church, the sense of the power and majesty of the church, the fact that you're dealing with 2,000 years of history. My dad had studied Augustine in college, and had a copy of Augustine's 'City of God' when I was a child, and you just had this sense of, that you are encountering a continuum of effort to understand God and to explain God to humans, that is pretty overwhelming.

Q: Tell me about how you decided to make a film about a pope as one of your first public acts as a Catholic?
A: Well, we had made a movie, called 'Rediscovering God in America,' which really contextualized American history, in terms of the Washington monuments. Then, we made a film about Reagan, called 'Rendezvous with Destiny,' and in filming the Reagan movie, we had gone to Gdansk, and interviewed Lech Walesa, and we had gone to Prague, and interviewed Vaclav Havel, and both said in their interviews that the decisive moment in the breaking of the Soviet Union was June of 1979, and the pope's 9-day visit. As we thought about that, and began to put it in context, I'd been reading Weigel, starting with 'The Cube and the Cathedral,' and then 'The Final Revolution' and then his biography of the pope, and if you read 'The Final Revolution,' Weigel really argues that the central role of religious belief and the central role of religious organization was at the center of what was happening in Eastern Europe. And then when you interview Lech Walesa, he says, 'You can't understand what happened with Solidarity if you don't understand what the church was doing, if you don't understand what the pope was doing.' And even Vaclav Havel, who is a playwright, was saying – he's not Polish, but he's saying, 'As a neighboring Czech, let me tell you what it meant to us to have a Slavic pope and to have somebody who understood tyranny' and so forth. So I dug into all of that. And then you get to this extraordinary story of the pope, who is born about a year and a half after Poland becomes a country again for the first time since 1793; as a teenager, sees Poland destroyed again by Germany and the Soviet Union; participates in the Rhapsodic Theater at a time when it means a death penalty, in order to sustain Polish culture; enters the seminary for the priesthood at a time when there's a death penalty; becomes a priest under the emerging Communist dictatorship; serves all of his priesthood under the Communists; knew many Jews, understood Auschwitz, has a childhood friend who is Jewish; and this is the man who, in 1978, becomes pope. I mean it is an extraordinary moment in history. And he is an athletic energetic actor who is a charismatic leader. And he has the key underlying insight that you defeat Communism at a cultural level, that you pit the cross against the Soviet emblem, and that the cross ultimately will defeat atheism.

Q: Do you see this as a personal film in any way, or is this purely an academic, documentary exercise?
A: No, I think this which will be -- if we can do it right, and this is a big challenge -- this is a film which I hope will be personal, immediate, people won't walk out and say, 'Gee, that was interesting 30 years ago,' they'll walk out and say, 'What does this mean for my life in my country today.' We hope to translate the film into Mandarin, and we've been asked to translate it now into Vietnamese because there are 5 million Vietnamese Catholics; we hope to translate it into Polish, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, because we see this as a universal film that has an impact for people everywhere on the planet.

Q: So do you still have political aspirations, or is filmmaking now your mission?
A: I think I have a public citizen aspiration. Whether it goes beyond that, we'll find out over the next few years.

(Photos, by David L. Ryan of the Globe staff, show Newt Gingrich at the Union Club in Boston on Oct. 8, 2009.)

A dispatch from the Boston-is-a-really-small-town department: Paul G. Kirk Jr., who was named today as the interim US Senator from Massachusetts, is the grand-nephew of Cardinal William H. O'Connell, one of the most powerful figures in local church history, who served as archbishop of Boston from 1907 until his death in 1944. Kirk, 71, is one of five children of Josephine O'Connell, whose father, Edward J. O'Connell, was an older brother of Cardinal O'Connell.

The connection ties Kirk to one of the odder stories now unfolding in town, as the Archdiocese of Boston seeks to disinter the cardinal's remains and remove them from land that the church sold to Boston College to raise money to pay off victims of clergy sexual abuse. The saga of the cardinal's tomb, which has been playing out for five years now, last week moved to Suffolk Probate and Family Court, where Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, joined by the trustees of Boston College, are suing 30 of O'Connell's living relatives, including Kirk, for the right to relocate the remains.

I last spoke with Kirk about his famous great-uncle about a year and a half ago. Kirk was born in 1938, and the cardinal died in 1944, so they didn't spend a lot of time together, and the memories have faded, but Kirk told me he remembered, as a little boy, visiting Cardinal O'Connell at his grand residence in Brighton (also now the property of BC), and that his most distinct memory was of reciting the pledge of allegiance for his great-uncle. At the time of our interview last year, Kirk was opposed to relocating the cardinal's remains, saying, "I think I speak for the majority of the cardinal's next of kin in saying that we would like him to remain at his chosen resting place.''

Kirk hasn't been taking calls in recent days, but I spoke this morning with his younger brother, Edward W. Kirk, who told me that Cardinal O'Connell presided at the 1934 marriage of the Kirk boys' parents, Josephine O'Connell and Paul G. Kirk, at a chapel at the cardinal's residence in Brighton. The elder Kirk went on to become a longtime Superior Court judge and then a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, and "was a great admirer of the cardinal,'' Ed Kirk told me. To mark that admiration, the elder Kirk placed two plaques on the flagpole of the Kirk family's summer house on Wequaquet Lake on Cape Cod, one bearing the name of the cardinal, and the other that of the Rev. Jeremiah F. Minihan, an O'Connell aide and Kirk friend who went on to become an auxiliary bishop in Boston. When the Kirk family sold the Centerville house, Paul G. Kirk Jr. removed the plaques for safekeeping, and the O'Connell tributes are now mounted on a flagpole in the yard of the interim senator's own house on Mystic Lake in Marstons Mills.

(Photo at top, from the Boston Globe's archives, shows Cardinal William H. O'Connell of Boston in 1943. Photo at bottom, by Adam Hunger/Reuters, shows Paul G. Kirk Jr. at the State House in Boston on Sept. 24, 2009.)

Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is the first Muslim elected to Congress, was to be the major speaker at the Religion Newswriters Association convention yesterday, but he got a better offer: President Obama decided to fly into Minneapolis to pitch health care reform at a rally at the Target Center, and he invited Ellison to join him on Air Force One. But, using a technique that seems to be increasingly common among politicians who cancel scheduled appearances, Ellison sent along a video in which he addressed a few questions left for him on his voice mail. The congressman offered a general disclaimer – “I would not presume to speak for the Muslim community – I am not an imam, nor a religious scholar’’ and he noted that most of the folks who voted to elect him were Christian. But he offered a few thoughts about the role of religion in public life. “Religion as a force in people’s lives is greater now than in quite a while,’’ he said. He gave a full-throated endorsement of religious people playing “every single role” in public life. He noted that religion has negative as well as positive impacts, and, he said, “the potential to be explosive,’’ but also said of atheists, “even their philosophy has resulted in catastrophic harm,’’ citing Pol Pot and Stalin as examples. “Clearly no segment of humanity has failed to use a philosophy or religion to change society for the good or the bad."

Ellison said that faith gives policy makers “a certain sense of humility. If you believe in an omniscient, divine power, and I certainly do…we have to recognize that we’re both important and infinitely small, and should not therefore presume to have all the answers.’’

Ellison, who supports a single-payer health care system, was most explicit about the role of his faith when discussing the issue of health care reform, and, in the line of the day, he wryly posed the rhetorical question, “Jesus healed the sick – did he not?” before adding, “and he didn’t charge them for it either.” Ellison ticked off a list of ways in which Muslims help provide health care, both through free clinics at various places around the country, and through the work that many Muslims do in the health care profession.

“A caring nation cares for the health of its people,’’ he said. “It is a moral axiom that we should lend assistance to people caring for health maladies.” He argued that the reason the United States does not have universal health insurance, unlike other multiple other countries, “is that a small group of people make a bundle of money on the status quo.’’

Asked about American relations with the Muslim world, particularly in the wake of President Obama’s Cairo speech, Ellison praised the president’s efforts to date, but said, “what’s needed is not only the excellent speeches the president gave, but we need to dig in and look at our policy decisions.’’ He called the Iraq War “a mistaken policy” and said it has been damaging to U.S. relations with the Muslim world. He also criticized the “corrosive effect on civil liberties” of the war on terror. He urged the audience of reporters to rethink what they mean by the phrase “the Muslim world,’’ suggesting that perhaps that phrase is used to describe countries where other factors, such as colonial history, are more important than religion. But Ellison also went further than I often hear in statements from Muslim leaders, volunteering, “I say to leaders in the Middle East, 'You need to talk about issues of incitement. Why do we have educational materials that say derogatory things about other religions? This is a bad thing, and not properly in line with Islamic teaching'.’’

(Photo, by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters, shows President Obama arriving in Minneapolis on Sept. 12, 2009 with, from left, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and Representative Keith Ellison.)

Two members of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, speaking from opposite ends of the theological spectrum, today suggested that they have pretty limited expectations for the panel.

Speaking at the annual convention of the Religion Newswriters Association, Frank S. Page, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said, "I do not think anything of substance will come out of it. The policy recommendations will be relatively innocuous -- nothing of great substance.'' Page is probably the most conservative member of the panel -- he described himself as the "resident fundamentalist,'' but he said he has access to the White House, expects to have a chance to talk directly with the president, is honored to be on the council, and said that "I think his heart is right with regard to some issues.''

The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, who is the president-elect of the National Council of Churches, didn't seem to have particularly high expectations for specific policy outcomes as a result of the diverse panel either, but she praised the effort at inclusiveness and listening. Interestingly, she opined that mainline Protestant leaders have less access to the Obama White House than do evangelical leaders, or even Catholics and Jews, but she suggested that that probably has more to do with the political skills and interests of the leaders, rather than any strategic effort by the White House.

USA Today's Cathy Grossman has a bit more on the discussion here.

Another Catholic leader is coming to the defense of the funeral for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Bishop Robert C. Morlino, the Catholic bishop of Madison, Wisconsin, has penned a column for his diocesan newspaper reflecting on the funeral rites. The quotation that jumped out at me was this one: "The death of Senator Kennedy has called forth at least an apparent rejection of mercy on the part of not a few Catholics." Morlino expresses "contentment" with the church's handling of the liturgy, writing:

The proclamation of God’s Mercy was powerful, the prayer for forgiveness of his past sins was clearly offered, and all of this in a subdued way because of his long-standing and public holding of pro-abortion and other stances which have been a scandal in the literal sense.

The only aspects of the Funeral Rites which were not low key were those on the guest-list, where family preferences are generally granted.

Morlino makes clear his unhappiness with Kennedy's support for abortion rights, but also praises his actions in other areas. Here is an excerpt from Morlino's lengthy column:

I’m afraid...that for not a few Catholics, the funeral rites for Senator Kennedy were a source of scandal — that is, quite literally, led them into sin. From not a few corners has come the question, "how on earth could Teddy Kennedy be buried from the Church?" There have also been expressions from some, that "whatever happens in Church, Senator Kennedy will now face justice, which will lead him inside the gates of Hell."

From the earliest days of the Church it was defined as sinful to enjoy the thought that someone might be in Hell. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit worked powerfully through history so that Hell could be avoided by the proper exercise of human freedom, and to take delight in the perceived foiling of God's plan is wrong.

Pope Benedict XVI has written very beautifully that on the Cross of Christ there was lived out a conflict between God's justice, in that someone who was Himself equal to God had to die in reparation for man's sinfulness, and God's mercy: from the very beginning, the Church believed and taught that Jesus died precisely so that sins might be forgiven. His body was broken and His blood was shed so that sins might be forgiven, so that there might be mercy.

The death of Senator Kennedy has called forth at least an apparent rejection of mercy on the part of not a few Catholics. On the cross of Christ, God's justice came into conflict with God's mercy. God's justice was fully satisfied, but mercy triumphed in the conflict, according to the teaching of Pope Benedict. Without denying any misdeeds on the part of Senator Kennedy, the Church, seeking to reflect the face of Christ, proclaimed God's mercy for the whole world to see in a subdued but unmistakable way. It was more than appropriate.

In the seminary I was taught to speak like a lion from the pulpit — certainly there are those in the diocese who believe that perhaps I do that all too well — but that in the confessional I should be a lamb, reflecting the face of the Lamb of God, who died so that there might be mercy. The funeral rites for Senator Kennedy challenge all of us to question ourselves as to whether we are less eager to grant mercy than God Himself is.

Morlino also comments on Kennedy's relationship with the Catholic church, discussing a meeting between Kennedy and theologians to discuss the abortion issue (I think he must be referring to a gathering in 1964 described by Anne Hendershott in the Wall Street Journal in January):

Senator Kennedy, a good number of years ago, convened a meeting of priests and very high-level theologians to address the issue of Catholic political leaders and their votes with regard to abortion. Obviously, the very convening of this meeting showed that he took his Catholicism seriously and did not consider himself to be an accomplished theologian. Sadly, that meeting simply became another occasion for the development by theologians of the "two-conscience" approach to the faith for Catholic political leaders — that is the approach which says, "privately I’m opposed to abortion, but in the public arena there are other conflicting responsibilities which allow me to vote in favor of legal abortion."

No matter how many theologians get together, the two-conscience theory is irreparably flawed and wrong, and no one can make it otherwise. But if Senator Kennedy was given this advice and this approach, this "catechesis" — false though it is — by prominent theologians, it could at least be said that there was some ground for confusion and ambiguity in his own practice about these matters. The priests and theologians who counseled Senator Kennedy are not free of blame for causing the confusion and the ambiguity through false catechesis.

God forbid that I be taken as making excuses for Teddy Kennedy’s behavior in certain areas, yet Senator Kennedy’s having written a personal letter to our Holy Father during his last days, a letter that was hand-delivered by President Obama, is also an indication that he believed that the pope alone was the Vicar of Christ, and he wanted to make absolutely sure that our Holy Father received his letter. And too, since priests were regularly present to him during his final year and final days, it would be more reasonable than not to believe that he had made a good confession.

Bishop Morlino's full column is here.

(H/T: The Deacon's Bench and Whispers in the Loggia.)

(Photo courtesy of Diocese of Madison.)

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston tonight has posted on his blog an unusual statement explaining why he decided to preside at the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and what he talked about during his two to three minute exchange with President Obama before the funeral Mass began. The cardinal made the statement after criticism, in the form of phone calls and e-mails to the archdiocese and comments by some bloggers and organizations, lambasting the cardinal for participating in the funeral of a prominent Catholic politician who supported abortion rights. The archdiocese says the cardinal also received multiple expressions of gratitude for his decision to participate in the funeral, but that because of the criticism he wanted to explain his decision.

Here is the statement:

Saturday was the 39th anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood, at St. Augustine’s Church in Pittsburgh by Bishop John B. McDowell, who is still going strong today. In the Church’s calendar, the feast day for August 29 is the Beheading of John the Baptist. People usually take note when I tell them that I was professed to religious life on Bastille Day, July 14, and ordained on the feast of the Beheading. Not that I am superstitious.

On Saturday morning I attended the funeral Mass for Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Father Donald Monan, S.J., former president of Boston College, celebrated the Mass and Father Mark Hession, pastor of Our Lady of Victories in Centerville, preached the homily.

The music was outstanding with the Tanglewood Festival Chorus enriching the liturgy along with mezzo-soprano Susan Graham who later sang an absolutely striking rendition of Schubert’s “Ave Maria.” Cellist Yo-Yo Ma graced us with his beautiful solo performance of Bach and later joined Placido Domingo, who sang the “Panis Angelicus.” Placido has a superb voice. I told him how much I like the Zarzuela, the Spanish classical musical theater productions. His family had a troupe that presented Zarzuelas in Mexico and he promised to arrange a performance.

The venue for the funeral Mass was Mission Church, the magnificent Redemptorist Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

Senator Kennedy prayed often in this church when his daughter, Kara, was stricken with cancer. It is a church where countless faithful have gone to pray and ask for healing, grace and forgiveness.

In light of these themes, I wish to address our Catholic faithful who have voiced both support and disappointment at my having presided at the Senator’s funeral Mass.

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. ­­­Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn. To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

The thousands of people who lined the roads as the late Senator’s motorcade travelled from Cape Cod to Boston and the throngs that crowded the Kennedy Library for two days during the lying in repose, I believe, were there to pay tribute to these many accomplishments rather than as an endorsement of the Senator’s voting record on abortion.

The crowds also were there to pay tribute to the Kennedy family as a whole. On the national political landscape, if Barack Obama broke the glass ceiling of the presidency for African Americans, Jack Kennedy broke it for American Catholics.

As a young lad, I saw photographs of both Pope John XXIII and President John Kennedy hanging in the thatched cottages of County Mayo and heard the Gaelic greeting, “God and Mary be with you.” Three of the Kennedy brothers died in service of our country in the prime of life. And Eunice Shriver, who died just a few weeks ago, was an outspoken defender of the unborn and an apostle of the Gospel of Life. She taught us all how to love special children and to make room for everyone at the table of life. In 1992, Eunice petitioned her party’s convention to consider “a new understanding” of the issue, “one that does not pit mother against child,” but instead seeks “policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth.”

Much of what is noble in the politics and work of the Kennedys had its origins in the bedrock of the faith of Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. As a young woman she had a profound experience of God’s love that transformed her life. She strove to communicate that faith to her large clan. Since the time of her funeral Mass I have kept her memorial prayer card, inscribed with Rose Kennedy’s own words:

"If God were to take away all His blessings, health, physical fitness, wealth, intelligence, and leave me but one gift, I would ask for faith – for with faith in Him and His goodness, mercy, love for me, and belief in everlasting life, I believe I could suffer the loss of my other gifts and still be happy – trustful, leaving all to His inscrutable Providence."

There are those who objected, in some cases vociferously, to the Church’s providing a Catholic funeral for the Senator. In the strongest terms I disagree with that position. At the Senator’s interment on Saturday evening, with his family’s permission, we learned of details of his recent personal correspondence with Pope Benedict XVI. It was very moving to hear the Senator acknowledging his failing to always be a faithful Catholic, and his request for prayers as he faced the end of his life. The Holy Father’s expression of gratitude for the Senator’s pledge of prayer for the Church, his commendation of the Senator and his family to the intercession of the Blessed Mother, and his imparting the Apostolic Blessing, spoke of His Holiness’ role as the Vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd who leaves none of the flock behind.

As Archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the Church at this liturgy out of respect for the Senator, his family, those who attended the Mass and all those who were praying for the Senator and his family at this difficult time. We are people of faith and we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy.

Advocating for the dignity of life is central to my role as a priest and a bishop. One of my greatest satisfactions in my ministry thus far was helping to overturn the abortion laws in Honduras. The person who answered my call for help with that effort was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had been a prominent leader in NARAL and the abortion rights movement. His own change of heart led Dr. Nathanson from a practice of providing abortions to becoming one of the most eloquent exponents of the pro-life movement.

Helen Alvaré, who is one of the most outstanding pro-life jurists, a former Director of the Bishops' Pro-life Office and a long standing consultant to the USCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities, has always said that the pro-life movement is best characterized by what it is for, not against. We are for the precious gift of life, and our task is to build a civilization of love. We must show those who do not share our belief about life that we care about them. We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts. We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss.

At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another. These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church. If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness, it will be doomed to marginalization and failure. Jesus’ words to us were that we must love one another as He loves us. Jesus loves us while we are still in sin. He loves each of us first, and He loves us to the end. Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the Church, for our proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other.

President Obama and three former presidents attended Senator Kennedy’s funeral. I had the opportunity to speak briefly with President Obama, to welcome him to the Basilica and to share with him that the bishops of the Catholic Church are anxious to support a plan for universal health care, but we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future. The President was gracious in the short time we spoke, he listened intently to what I was saying.

Democrats and Republicans sat side by side in the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, praying for Senator Kennedy and his family. It is my sincere hope that all people who long to promote the cause of life will pray and work together to change hearts, to bring about an increased respect for life, and to change laws so as to make America a safe place for all, including the unborn.

The cardinal's statement appears to have been provoked by the widespread discussion among Catholic opinion leaders and writers about how the church should have responded to Kennedy's death, given that the senator was a member of the most prominent Catholic family in American history, and a champion on many elements of Catholic social teaching, but also a supporter of abortion rights as well as an advocate for gay rights and a man whose personal failings had also been well chronicled.

There has been ample criticism of the hierarchy's role in the Kennedy funeral rites. Raymond Arroyo, the news director at Eternal Word Television Network, blogged:

The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one. The casual viewer is tempted to think that Catholicism has become a Church of externals where core doctrines and major teachings are as malleable as they are in the nearest Protestant community. Or worse, to think it all a hollow show.

Elizabeth Scalia, over at First Things, was also concerned, writing, "By all means, the good done in every life should be remembered and celebrated, but in the twenty-first century it is a problematic hagiography that dismisses some genuinely deleterious public behavior with a shrugging, 'as we’re all flawed, let us on this be silent!'"

Harsher criticism came from groups including such as Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, whose executive director, C.J. Doyle wrote, the day of the funeral:

No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself.

And the Rev. Brian Harrison, writing at LifeSiteNews.com, offered a similar critique:

For to those innumerable viewers and listeners of many religions (or none) who were aware of Sen. Kennedy's public, straightforward, radical, long-standing, and (as far as we know) unrepented defiance of his own Church's firm teaching about the duty of legislators to protect unborn human life and resist the militant homosexual agenda, this morning's Mass, concelebrated by several priests, presided over Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, and adorned by a eulogy from the aforesaid U.S. President, effectively communicated a tacit but very clear message: the Church does not really take too seriously her own 'official' doctrines on these matters!

A few groups opposed the idea of granting Kennedy a Catholic funeral at all -- the president of the American Life League, Judie Brown, wrote Cardinal O'Malley before the funeral, saying, "If this funeral Mass proceeds as planned, Senator Edward Kennedy will have spit one more time on Christ, this time from a casket.'' The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, wrote that, "To honor this 'catholic' champion of the culture of death with a Catholic funeral is unjust to those who have actually paid the price of fidelity."

O'Malley's blog post tonight is his first statement about the late Senator Kennedy since August 26, when the cardinal issued a brief statement about the senator's death:

Today we mourn the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy and we extend our heartfelt prayers and sincere condolences to his wife Victoria and their children, Kara, Edward, Patrick, Curran and Caroline. Senator Kennedy was blessed with a dedicated and loving family who stood by his side, particularly during the past year as he faced his illness with courage, dignity and strength.

We join with his colleagues in Congress and the people of Massachusetts in reflecting on his life and his commitment to public service. For nearly half a century, Senator Kennedy was often a champion for the poor, the less fortunate and those seeking a better life. Across Massachusetts and the nation, his legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served.

We pray for the repose of his soul and that his family finds comfort and consolation in this difficult time.

Two of the three other Massachusetts bishops also expressed condolences, without mentioning the abortion issue. The bishop of Worcester, Robert J. McManus, issued the following statement:

It is with great sadness tempered with Christian hope in eternal life that we turn to almighty God in prayer for our departed senator and brother, Edward M. Kennedy. His dedication to public service for nearly fifty years and his zealous advocacy for so many issues of social justice, which benefited not just our Commonwealth but the entire country, will truly be missed. Our hearts and prayers go out to the members of the Kennedy family at the death of a man who cared so much for them as loving father, brother, uncle, and friend. May God bring them his peace and consolation in this time of loss and grief. May Senator Kennedy's soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

And the bishop of Fall River, George W. Coleman, also issued a statement:

The Fall River Diocese mourns the loss of Senator Edward M. Kennedy who, throughout his life, enjoyed spending time on Cape Cod. We join with others across our state and nation in remembering him for his many years of service in the U.S. Senate, where he was a strong proponent of efforts to help the poor and disadvantaged. We offer our prayers for the repose of his soul and extend to his wife, children, and entire family our sympathy and prayerful condolences.

The bishop of Springfield, Timothy A. McDonell, did not issue a statement about Kennedy's death.

In this morning's Globe, I have a story about the exchange of letters between Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and the Vatican. An excerpt:

Scholars generally agree that Kennedy’s letter to Pope Benedict XVI, which had remained secret from the time of its delivery July 10 until the time it was read aloud at his burial Saturday, revealed a man eager to explain how he reconciled his public actions with his private beliefs, and hungry for the prayers and support of his church.

The response, in turn, revealed the top echelon of the church to be far less conflicted and chastising than some of its American adherents, offering comfort rather than confrontation.

“The letters reflect the cordiality and mutual respect that ought to characterize relationships within the Catholic community, even when there are serious differences,’’ said the Rev. Thomas P. Rausch, a professor of Catholic theology at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angles. And the Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a theologian at Notre Dame, said, “The Vatican’s warm reply to the senator’s letter was in striking contrast to the harshly negative rhetoric some of his critics have directed at him, even in death.’’

You can read the whole story here. And I've posted on this blog a transcript of Cardinal McCarrick's remarks at the burial, including the excerpts of the letters.

(Photo, by Dina Rudick of the Globe staff, shows a scene from the burial of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetery on Aug. 29, 2009.)

Some items on my reading list this Tuesday morning:

Old-school seminary: Eric Gorski, a national religion reporter for the Associated Press, visits a Neocatechumenal Way seminary in Denver. The enticing lede: "The seminarians' wallets are empty, except for driver's licenses and insurance cards. To buy cigarettes or clothes or anything else, they must ask their superiors for money — an exercise in obedience and a reminder that material things are not important."

Gene Robinson in England: The Guardian newspaper has a lengthy interview with the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire with lots of interesting personal detail, but the newsiest bit is his reaction to the idea of a two-tiered Anglican Communion: "I can't imagine anything that would be more abhorrent to Jesus than a two-tier church."

More on Protestants and homosexuality: On today's Globe op-ed page, scholars Wendy Cadge of Brandeis and Laura Olson of Clemson take a look at the battles over gay rights in Protestantism, and observe that, "Mainline Protestant denominations in particular are slowly, but deliberately, adopting more tolerant stances - leaving conservatives rather than liberals to split off from their churches."

Obama's faith office: Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News takes a look at how the Obama Administration's faith-based office differs from that of the Bush Administration and concludes that "President Obama's faith-based office has given religious figures a bigger role in influencing White House decisions."

Douthat on Kennedys: Ross Douthat's column in Sunday's New York Times about differences on abortion between siblings Ted and Eunice Kennedy, both of whom died last month, is occasioning a lot of chatter. He writes, "It’s worth pondering how the politics of abortion might have been different had Ted shared even some of his sister’s qualms about the practice."

The big news of the day in Catholic America was the resignation of Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton, Pa. This is not ordinarily a diocese that attracts national attention, but Martino had managed to change that with his sharp criticism of his diocese's most famous son, Vice President Joe Biden, as well as various local Catholic institutions, primarily over the abortion issue.

Then today, not only did Martino quit, citing fatigue, at an invitation-only news conference held at a secret location, but his auxiliary bishop also quit, and the cardinal brought in to restore some order, Cardinal Justin F. Rigali of Philadelphia, declined to reappoint the diocese's controversial episcopal vicar. The purge, if that's what it was, is triggering quite a bit of chatter about whether the Vatican (which has been conspicuously warmer toward the Obama administration than have some American bishops) is concerned with the tone of dialogue among bishops stateside.

Martino acknowledged the unhappiness in his diocese, saying, "For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance,'' and blamed his "sorrow" over the situation for causing him health problems.

By far the best summation of the Scranton situation that I've seen comes from David Gibson over at Politics Daily, who writes, "Martino became for many the angry face of the anti-Obama wing of the Catholic hierarchy thanks to his intemperate blasts about pro-choice politicians and an overweening administrative style that irritated the flock and even his brother bishops." It's well worth reading in full, but here is an an excerpt:

In February, Martino warned Irish-American groups that he would close the city's cathedral on St. Patrick's Day if any of them honored a politician who Martino said would be considered "pro-abortion." That was seen as a shot across the bow against inviting Joe Biden; in past years, the Scranton Irish-Americans had honored both Obama and then-Senator Hillary Clinton...

But it was the presidential campaign last year that brought Martino to national prominence, and seemed to bring out the more volatile aspects of his personality.

In September, as Biden was barnstorming Pennsylvania -- the vice president was born and baptized Catholic in Scranton before moving to Delaware later in life -- Martino declared that Biden would be denied communion if he tried to receive at a church in the Scranton diocese. "I will be truly vigilant on this point," Martino said. It was a step not even Biden's own bishop in Delaware would take.

Then in October, Martino had priests read a letter during all Sunday masses in the diocese telling Catholics that voting for a pro-choice politician was equivalent to endorsing "homicide."

Martino also called on priests and anyone who distributes communion to act on their own to deny the Eucharist -- the central sacrament of Catholic belief and worship -- to anyone who they believe publicly supports pro-choice policies. Martino even rebuked Pennsylvania's Democratic Senator Bob Casey, a pro-life Catholic who supported Obama, suggesting he may be denied communion if he came to Scranton.

But it was an event in late October last year, on the eve of the presidential vote, as religious rhetoric was growing white-hot, that may have pushed Martino over the line in the eyes of many.

A parish was holding a regular voter-education forum on the election, featuring discussion of a document, "Faithful Citizenship," the election guide endorsed almost unanimously by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB. Martino showed up at the parish hall unannounced, causing a stir. Then he took the microphone and proceeded to critique the organizers for not using his own letter on abortion as the basis of the discussion.

When a nun at the forum reminded Martino about the document of the entire bishops conference Martino responded: "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn't speak for me. The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

There are lots of dots to be connected -- or not -- here, but for those inclined to see a push toward more civil dialogue, there is not only Martino's resignation but also the Vatican newspaper's relatively warm tone toward President Obama, and the decision of two cardinals, Sean P. O'Malley of Boston and Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, to oversee the key funeral rites for the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, as well as the fact that Pope Benedict XVI responded to a plea for prayers from the dying senator with a note expressing "spiritual closeness" and bestowing an apostolic blessing. And last week Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan, the respected archbishop of Santa Fe, suggested that most bishops were not on board with the heated denunciations of Notre Dame earlier this year for choosing Obama as its commencement speaker. "Hysterical activity doesn’t bear fruit, and there’s been some hysteria in these areas,'' Sheehan told the National Catholic Reporter.

Gibson's conclusion about the Martino matter: "His resignation may be further evidence that the U.S. hierarchy is divided between moderate voices and a more strident conservative minority that is struggling in the wake of Obama's success with Catholic voters." And Mark Silk, over at Spiritual Politics, writes, "Martino often seemed out of control, if not off his meds. ...While no one would say that a strong liberal wing is blowing from Rome, there seems little question that the message for the day is moderazione."

(Photo, by Bradley C. Bower/AP, shows Bishop Joseph F. Martino in Scranton on Oct. 1, 2003.)

Several readers who watched the funeral of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy Saturday have written to ask me whether Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley snubbed the vice-president of the United States, Joe Biden, who happens to be an abortion rights supporting Catholic. The question/observation was prompted by the scene shown in the video at left (courtesy of NECN), which shows O'Malley talking to President Obama and then shaking the hands of several other dignitaries (Michelle Obama, President Carter, Rosalynn Carter, and Jill Biden), but not the hand of the vice-president.

I have to say that this idea of a snub didn't ring true to me. As someone who covers the cardinal fairly regularly, my own observation is that he can be socially awkward at times -- he is clearly not cut from a politician's cloth -- but not intentionally rude, and it's a bit difficult for me to imagine him intentionally refusing to shake the hand of the vice-president of the United States.

There's another factor that might surprise some folks who are aware only of the cardinal's concerns about the Democratic party and abortion. The cardinal's communications director is a man named Terrence C. Donilon, who is from a family that is quite active in Democratic politics at the national level. As it turns out, Terry's brother, Michael (Mike) C. Donilon, is a longtime Biden aide who now holds the job of Counselor to the Vice-President. And Terry's sister-in-law, Catherine (Cathy) M. Russell is a former Biden aide who is now chief of staff to Jill Biden, the wife of the vice-president. (Russell is married to another Donilon brother, Thomas E. Donilon, who is deputy national security advisor in the White House.)

So I called Terry to ask what happened Saturday morning. He was at the funeral, and had spoken to both Biden and O'Malley that day, and assures me that the cardinal and the vice-president had a full conversation earlier in the morning. "The cardinal spoke to the vice president before the Mass for a few minutes, and shook hands,'' Donilon said. "I spoke to the vice-president and his wife, and they were very gracious and pleased to see the cardinal.'' Donilon also told me that the cardinal again shook hands with the vice-president during the Exchange of Peace. I called Ted McEnroe, the director of digital media over at NECN, who was kind enough to go through the pool footage for me, and came up with video proof of a Biden-O'Malley conversation (you can even see the two men sharing a laugh). So for any of you who still have doubt, take a look at the second video at left.

In today's paper, and with a lot of help from local priests and church officials, I attempt to answer many of the most commonly asked questions about Catholicism and the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The full article is here, but here is the bulk of it:

Q. Why was the funeral at the Mission Church?

A. Senator Kennedy, before he died, chose the Mission Church, formally known as the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, as the site for his funeral. The church has an icon that Catholics pray before when seeking healing, and the senator had frequently prayed there when his daughter, Kara, was being treated for lung cancer at Brigham & Women’s Hospital. He also visited the church when he was diagnosed with cancer last year. The church also is large, so it had space for the funeral, and it is located in a diverse and long-struggling neighborhood, calling attention to the senator’s concern for the poor.

Q. How was this Mass similar to, or different from, ordinary funeral Masses?

A. The liturgy was the same, in terms of the prayers and rituals, but there were fewer hymns, more speeches, and, obviously, more famous people in the pews.

Q. Wouldn’t Chappaquiddick, or Senator Kennedy’s divorce and remarriage, or his support for abortion rights, disqualify him from a Catholic funeral?

A. The Catholic Church teaches that all of us are sinners and that sinfulness does not disqualify one from a funeral Mass. “It’s not a canonization - if you’re a member of the flock, you have a right to a Catholic funeral,’’ said the Rev. James A. Field, a former director of the archdiocesan Office for Worship. “He was a faithful, baptized member of the church who hadn’t left or been thrown out, and he had a right to a funeral Mass.’’

Q. What was Cardinal O’Malley’s role at the funeral?

A. O’Malley was present to represent the Catholic Church of Boston, and because he is the archbishop of Boston, he was considered the presider. He was not the principal celebrant of the Mass (that was the Rev. J. Donald Monan, chancellor of Boston College), and he was not the homilist (that was Rev. Mark R. Hession, the family priest on Cape Cod). But that was not unusual; bishops often allow other priests to lead weddings or funerals, even when the bishop is present, if there are priests who had closer relationships with the person being married or buried. O’Malley’s most visible role was to offer the prayers of commendation, after the Mass, when he commended Senator Kennedy into the hands of God, and asked God’s blessing on the mourners. During that ritual, O’Malley also honored the body with incense in a sign of God’s blessing.

Q. Doesn’t the church prohibit so many speakers at a funeral?

A. Yes. The Archdiocese of Boston guidelines are quite clear, reading, “only one speaker, a member or a friend of the family, may speak for not more than five minutes in remembrance of the deceased.’’ Other speeches are supposed to take place during a wake. This policy has often been unpopular, and it’s not clear how evenly enforced it is, but Cardinal Bernard F. Law famously insisted on the one-speaker restriction at the funerals of House Speaker Tip O’Neill and US Representative John J. Moakley. There were three speakers at yesterday’s funeral - the two Kennedy sons and President Obama. The archdiocese says an exception was made by Father Monan, the celebrant, and the Redemptorist fathers, who oversee the basilica.

Q. Why was there so little singing?

A. The congregation sang twice, at the beginning (“Holy God We Praise Thy Name’’) and the end (“America the Beautiful). That was significantly less singing than at most contemporary Catholic funerals, where the responsorial psalm, the Allelulia, and the acclamations would be sung. The Kennedy funeral, however, had more choral and instrumental music, led by some famous musicians, including the cellist Yo-Yo Ma, the tenor Placido Domingo, the mezzo-soprano Susan Graham, the Tanglewood Festival Chorus, and members of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

Q. Who was allowed to take Communion?

A. Communion in Catholic churches is restricted to Catholics in good standing, but no announcement was made, there was no reference to a restriction in the program, and anybody who came forward would receive Communion. Camera angles were restricted so that they did not show exactly who took Communion, but the prominent non-Catholic elected officials, such as President Obama, remained in their pews during Communion.

Q. Is Senator Kennedy going to heaven?

A. Catholic theologians say that is a question for God, not church officials or any of Senator Kennedy’s fans or foes. An archdiocesan official says, “The purpose of the funeral liturgy is to pray for the soul of the deceased person. Our prayer is inspired by our hope in God’s mercy and forgiveness. Senator Kennedy, like any person, was imperfect and in need of God’s mercy.’’

(Photo, by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images, shows the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston on August 29, 2009.)

One last surprise from the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy: at his burial service in Washington tonight, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick read excerpts from the exchange of letters between the dying senator and the Vatican. The letters are extremely revealing, both of the importance of Catholic faith and the Catholic Church to Kennedy, and of the pastoral response from the pope even to a politician with whom the church had serious disagreements.

Here is the text of Cardinal McCarrick's remarks:

There is a certain fittingness in having a burial at the dying of the day, because we know that the sun will come back again tomorrow. And as we think of Teddy, we know that his new life begins. And as we look at this great family, we're sure that new life is already beginning, and that new great things are happening.

Mr. Vice President; Vicki; members of the family: It is for all of us a very special time, in our own lives, in your life, and the life of our country. And so we begin in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Amen)

Dear friends in Christ, in the name of Jesus and his church, we gather together to pray for Edward Moore Kennedy, that God may bring him to everlasting peace and rest. We share the pain of loss, but the promise of eternal life gives us hope. And therefore, we comfort one another with these words.

(Kara Kennedy, Senator Kennedy's daughter, then read from the Letter of Paul to the Philippians, after which Cardinal McCarrick resumed:)

May I, for just a moment, be the voice of so many, all around the world, to pay a final tribute to Senator Ted Kennedy, and to offer our heartfelt condolence, to his wife Vicki, to his sister Jean, to his children and grandchildren, and to all the Kennedy family, as also to that extended family that must probably include most of America.

May I also add a word that we who were privileged to watch the very beautiful funeral Mass this morning had to be touched by the wonderful part in that liturgy played by the younger generation of Kennedys. The warm and very personal tribute in the elegies of Teddy's sons, and even that of the president of the United States, whose warmth and whose friendship for Ted is obviously so powerful. That, together with the splendid homily of Father Hession, Ted's parish priest, made our farewell to Senator Kennedy unforgettable.

On learning of his death last Wednesday morning, tributes to his half-century of leadership in American life and politics came in from all over the globe. May I offer my own short one again.

They called him, "The Lion of the Senate," and indeed that is what he was. His roar, and his zeal for what he believed, made a difference in our nation’s life. Sometimes, of course, we who were his friends and had affection for him would get mad at him when he roared at what we believed was the wrong side of an issue, but we always knew, and were always touched by, his passion for the underdog, for the rights of working people, for better education, for adequate health care for every American. His legacy will surely place him among the dozen or so greats in the history of the Senate of the United States.

Shortly before he died, Senator Kennedy wrote a very moving letter to the Holy Father, and took advantage of the historic visit to the Vatican of President Obama to ask the president if he would deliver it personally, which Mr. Obama gladly did. A couple of weeks later, the pope replied with a fatherly message of concern for the senator’s illness, and a prayer for his progress.

When Vicki and I and others began to talk about the organization of this brief service, the happy thought emerged of using part of these two letters to commemorate the faith of Ted Kennedy, and the warm and paternal spirit of Pope Benedict XVI. I want to quote from that letter. It begins:

"Most Holy Father, I asked President Obama to personally hand deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me, and I am so deeply grateful to him.

"I hope this letter finds you in good health. I pray that you have all of God’s blessings as you lead our church and inspire our world during these challenging times.

"I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines. I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago, and although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old, and preparing for the next passage of life.

"I have been blessed to be a part of a wonderful family, and both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained, and nurtured, and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path.

"I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor, and open doors of economic opportunity. I’ve worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war. Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator.

"I also want you to know that, even though I am ill, I am committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I will continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.

"I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God’s blessings, on you and on our church, and would be most thankful for your prayers for me."

Two weeks later, the reply came back from the Vatican, and in part, it read as follows:

"The Holy Father has read the letter which you entrusted to President Obama, who kindly presented it to him during their recent meeting. He was saddened to know of your illness, and asked me to assure you of his concern and his spiritual closeness. He is particularly grateful for your promise of prayers for him, and for the needs of our universal church.

"His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful Father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the risen savior to all who share in his sufferings, and trust in his promise of eternal life.

"Commending you and the members of your family to the loving intervention of the blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his apostolic blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord."

That's the end of the quotation.

With the prayers of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict, added to our own prayers, we entrust the body of Edward Moore Kennedy, Senator Ted, to his resting place, until the Lord calls us forth, until the end of time. Amen.

And now, let us pray.

For those of us on the O'Malley beat, there were lots of interesting moments this morning, but none more so than the lengthy greeting that Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley had with President Obama. O'Malley, of course, is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston and has been sharply critical of Obama's support for abortion rights ("This man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues,'' O'Malley told me after the election).

I asked O'Malley's spokesman, Terry Donilon, what the two men talked about, and he e-mailed back, "If he chooses to speak about it, he will in the blog, but it was a pleasant and gracious chat." He said the conversation lasted two to three minutes, and that the cardinal welcomed the president to Boston and the basilica. He would not say whether there was a more substantive exchange.

O'Malley technically presided over the Mass, but he was not the principal celebrant or the homilist, and he was visible mostly at the end, as he said the final prayers of commendation over the late senator's body. O'Malley's tone, even on the happiest of occasions, is somber, and he added a funereal touch to the funeral's close as he honored the body with incense, a sign of respect for the body and also a sign of God's blessing.

UPDATE: There is strong praise for O'Malley from the Rev. James Martin, associate editor of America magazine, who blogs:

Cardinal O'Malley's decision to attend the funeral is largehearted, compassionate, pastoral, sensitive and, above all, Christian. In this overheated environment, when some in the church are ready to condemn and anathematize, the calm presence of the leader of the Boston archdiocese at the funeral of a man--though the cardinal fiercely disagreed with him on many things--whose led a life of faith, is something that places our church in the best possible light. Kennedy's parish priest noted the senator's deep faith; his children and grandchildren noted his service for the poor; his biographer has spoken of his love of the Gospels, most especially the Sermon on the Mount. Cardinal O'Malley has been clear about his strong opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, his simple presence at the funeral shows his support of forgiveness, compassion and that quality perhaps most missing in today's church: mercy.

Here is O'Malley at the start of the Mass, as the casket arrives. The cardinal is vested in the red robes that signify his willingness to die for the church:

And here is O'Malley during the prayers of commendation, now wearing a cope because the Mass has ended, honoring the body with incense:

(Photos all taken today at the funeral of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy at the Mission Church in Boston. Photo at top, of Obama and O'Malley, by Getty; photo at right, of Obama and O'Malley, by Reuters. Third photo, of O'Malley at the start of Mass, by Getty, and fourth photo, of O'Malley at the end of the funeral, by AP.)

This morning the Rev. James A. Field and I hosted a chat with Boston.com readers about the funeral Mass for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Father Field is the former director of the Office for Worship for the Archdiocese of Boston, and now the pastor of Incarnation Parish in Melrose. The chat is now over, but you can read our conversation here:

It turns out that Cardinal O'Malley will not be alone in presiding over a portion of the funeral rites for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy: Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the archbishop emeritus of Washington, is going to preside over the burial at Arlington National Cemetery tomorrow.

McCarrick had a long relationship with Kennedy from the days when the archbishop headed the domestic and international policy committee for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. And for five years Kennedy co-hosted, with Republican Representative John Boehner of Ohio, an annual fundraiser for inner-city Catholic schools in Washington.

Interestingly, McCarrick headed the USCCB's task force on Catholic bishops and Catholic politicians, which advised bishops not to honor politicians who support abortion rights. But a church official tells me that a funeral and a burial are not considered honors.

(Photo, by Matthew J. Lee of the Globe staff, shows Cardinal McCarrick speaking at Boston College on March 3, 2005.)

BREAKING NEWS:

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston will preside at the funeral of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy tomorrow at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (the Mission Church). The Rev. J. Donald Monan, a Jesuit priest who was the longtime president of Boston College and is now the chancellor, will be the principal celebrant. And the Rev. Mark R. Hession, pastor of Our Lady of Victory Parish in Centerville, will deliver the homily.

PROGRAM DETAILS:

First Reading: Curran Raclin, stepson
Responsorial: Kara Kennedy Allen, daughter
Second Reading: Caroline Raclin, stepdaughter
Homily: Rev. Mark Hession
Intercessory Prayers: Kennedy's four grandchildren, and the youngest grandchild of each of his siblings, will read quotes from his speeches. (The family chose to honor the youngest children because Kennedy was the youngest in his family.)
Offertory: Grandchildren
Music by Yo-Yo Ma
Communion
Music by Placido Domingo accompanied by the Tanglewood Festival Chorus
"Ave Maria" by Susan Graham of the Metropolitan Opera
Tribute: Edward M. Kennedy Jr. and US Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (sons)
Eulogy: President Obama
Song: America the Beautiful

ANALYSIS:

The family and church officials have essentially chosen to split the roles three ways. Cardinal O'Malley, because of his role as the archbishop of Boston, will technically preside over the funeral, but Fathers Monan and Hession, who had closer relationships with Senator Kennedy, will be far more visible to casual viewers of the liturgy. Monan will celebrate the Mass, which will include presiding over the congregation and reciting the prayers of the Mass and being at the center of the altar during the Eucharist. Hession will deliver the homily, and his task will be to take the readings of the day and apply them to the moment. This is a very typical arrangement, not only at large-scale funerals but also liturgies such as the first Mass of a new priest, in which a bishop will step aside to allow a close friend of the person being honored to celebrate the liturgy.

WHY FATHER MONAN?

Monan, a Jesuit priest, was the longest serving president in the history of Boston College, serving from 1972 to 1996; he is a respected figure in Boston and was a transformational leader for BC, shepherding the institution through a period of enormous growth in endowment and reputation. Kennedy, although not a BC alumnus, was a longtime friend of the institution: he received an honorary law degree there in 1966 (see photo below), and he served as a university trustee from 1976 to 1991. JFK also received an honorary degree from BC, in 1956, and RFK received an honorary degree there in 1960.

Boston College issued a brief statement from Monan just now: "I have known Sen. Kennedy for 35 years as a close friend, as a trustee of Boston College and a person who certainly was one of the strongest advocates for the value of higher education. It is an honor to me to celebrate the Mass," he said. Monan previously celebrated funeral Masses for two other significant American politicians, House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O’Neill, Jr., in 1996, and U.S. Sen. Michael J. "Mike" Mansfield, in 2001.

(Photo, courtesy of Boston College, shows Sen. Edward M. Kennedy receiving an honorary
degree from Boston College President Rev. Michael Walsh at BC in 1966.)

Among the many questions I keep getting in response to today's story about Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Catholicism: what about his divorce? The answer is that Kennedy's first marriage, to Joan Bennett, ended in divorce; the marriage was reportedly annulled, and his second marriage, to Victoria Reggie, although conducted as a civil ceremony, was "blessed by the church,'' according to Kennedy's office. This is not particularly unusual -- there were 46,000 annulments in just one year (2002), according to the Vatican. Some people argued that Kennedy and other Catholic politicians should not receive Communion because of their support for abortion rights. Kennedy, obviously, did not share that view and Kennedy's bishop, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, has repeatedly asserted that it is not the place of a priest to deny Communion to a politician; that it is up to individual Catholics to wrestle with their own consciences and to decide whether to present themselves for Communion. Kennedy regularly sought and received Communion at churches in Washington and Massachusetts; he was seen taking Communion at his mother's funeral in 1995, and I myself saw Cardinal Law give him Communion earlier this decade.

(Photo, by Ollie Noonan, shows Sen. Kennedy receiving Communion at the funeral of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, in 1968.)

As the world anticipates tomorrow's funeral for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and a eulogy to be delivered by President Obama, Globe editor Roy Greene has pulled together a nice look back at some of the eulogies Kennedy himself delivered over his long career.

(Photo, by AP, shows Sen. Edward Kennedy eulogizing his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York on June 8, 1968.)

I'm getting lots of e-mail in response to today's story about Kennedy and Catholicism, with many questions and observations, some of which I'll try to share over the course of the day.

Among those who e-mailed was Mitchell Garabedian, the Boston lawyer who represented scores of victims of clergy sexual abuse, who wanted to share a little about Kennedy's response to the abuse crisis. Here's what Garbedian told me:

A few years ago Senator Kennedy, while traveling to a meeting concerning the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, personally called me to express his support for clergy sexual abuse victims and for my legal representation of clergy sexual abuse victims.

While speaking with Senator Kennedy about the the harm to clergy sexual abuse victims I could sense a genuineness in his heart and a sincerity in his soul. He was very easy to talk to. It was like discussing the matter with the concerned neighbor next door. Senator Kennedy was not in a rush to end the conversation. In our discussion, Senator Kennedy stressed the continuing need to help those less fortunate.

Several scholars I spoke with yesterday pointed out to me that Kennedy, despite being repeatedly criticized by the Catholic right, never fought back by criticizing the church. I took a look in our clips to see what Kennedy said about the abuse crisis.

In February of 2002, Kennedy said Cardinal Law should not resign over the abuse crisis. "What I'm most interested in is those families, their needs, and their tension and their anxiety, their pain, is attended to, and that we're going to develop within this whole archdiocese an accountability and a responsibility," he said.

But when Law did resign, in December of 2002, Kennedy said the resignation was the "right thing to do for the victims, their families, the church and the whole of the Catholic community. Real closure is far off for the victims, their families and all that are hurt by the terrible pain of this ordeal. But today is the first step toward a new dawn in our hearts and in our church."

(Photo, by Bill Greene of the Globe staff, shows Cardinal Law and Sen. Kennedy in Boston on March 2, 1987.)

In this morning's paper, I take a look at the relationship between Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and the Catholic Church. Here is the lede:

He was, at the same time, the scion of the most storied Catholic family in American history, and the bane of the Catholic right.

By championing the poor, the disabled, the immigrant, and the elderly, his politics often embodied Catholic social teaching, but with his personal failings and, especially, his strong support of abortion rights, he drew legions of often furious opponents who wanted him excommunicated.

As Boston prepares for tomorrow’s funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the nation is getting a very public reminder of the predominantly private way in which Catholicism was woven through the life of Massachusetts’ longtime senator, a man who went to Mass daily for a year after his mother died, who sought help from a “healing priest’’ when he was diagnosed with cancer, who on his deathbed consulted with a local priest, and who, for his funeral, chose the basilica where he had regularly prayed for a miraculous cure for his cancer-stricken daughter.

But the elaborate mourning rituals - starting with the vigil that began on Cape Cod yesterday and ending with the burial in Washington tomorrow - are also reigniting the debate over Kennedy’s place in Catholic history.

“The common thread that runs through everything he accomplished was his belief in building things for the benefit of others, particularly those most in need,’’ said Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital and president of Catholic Democrats. “I believe this is the essence of being a good Catholic, and I think it’s right at the heart of Senator Kennedy’s entire legacy.’’

But others offered a far more critical appraisal.

“He will be remembered as one of the most scandalous Catholics in the history of the church,’’ said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, called for Kennedy to be excommunicated. “I’m horrified by him getting a Catholic funeral, because he spit at the church regularly.’’

For historians and church officials, there are simply no easy answers: Kennedy’s legacy as a Catholic is complex and debatable.

“If you look back over his long career, most of his life was taken up with domestic social policy and social welfare issues, and on those issues the church had a lot of overlap with him,’’ said the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, a top official of the Archdiocese of Boston. “But it was no secret, and should not be overlooked, that there was direct conflict on the prolife issues.’’

Read the whole story here.

(Photo, by David L. Ryan of the Globe staff, shows Senator Edward M. Kennedy lying in repose at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum on August 27, 2009.)

The motorcade carrying Senator Kennedy's body passed in front of the Globe (which is located in Dorchester, across the way from the JFK Library) this afternoon. I shot this video from a roofdeck outside our cafeteria; the building on the other side of the street is the Jesuit-run BC High School.

In today's paper, I have a profile of the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, commonly known as the Mission Church, which is the church Sen. Edward M. Kennedy chose for his funeral. The lede:

For years, thousands of Bostonians have sought healing by praying before a golden image of the Virgin Mary in a shrine on Mission Hill. They kneel before the painting, leave flowers by the rail, deposit notes in a glass bowl, turn on electronic candles, even drop off crutches or braces as a sign of a miraculous cure.

Many of the petitioners are poor and powerless.

But over the years, Senator Edward M. Kennedy also came to the shrine seeking healing, and now his family has chosen the landmark basilica in which the shrine is located as the site for the senator’s funeral Saturday.

Kennedy visited the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help daily in 2002, while his daughter was being treated for lung cancer at the nearby Brigham and Women's Hospital, praying before the icon and meeting with a priest thought to have a healing touch. And the senator again visited the basilica last year, after he was diagnosed with brain cancer.

“The senator wanted to be buried from the basilica because of a deep connection developed here during his daily visits while his daughter, Kara, was going through cancer treatment,’’ said Scott Ferson, a former Kennedy staffer who is helping the family with funeral preparations. “Because of her recovery, it remained an especially sacred place for him.’’

I'm compiling here statements from religious leaders about the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Check back for updates -- I'll add the statements as they come in.

From Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston:

Today we mourn the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy and we extend our heartfelt prayers and sincere condolences to his wife Victoria and their children, Kara, Edward, Patrick, Curran and Caroline. Senator Kennedy was blessed with a dedicated and loving family who stood by his side, particularly during the past year as he faced his illness with courage, dignity and strength.

We join with his colleagues in Congress and the people of Massachusetts in reflecting on his life and his commitment to public service. For nearly half a century, Senator Kennedy was often a champion for the poor, the less fortunate and those seeking a better life. Across Massachusetts and the nation, his legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served.

We pray for the repose of his soul and that his family finds comfort and consolation in this difficult time.

From Barry Shrage, president of Combined Jewish Philanthropies:

Like so many people, I mourn the loss of Ted Kennedy. Ted and his brothers were heroes to me, giants in the fight to make a better world of equality, justice and caring.

I’ve never forgotten the first time I met Ted Kennedy. I was 40 years old and brand new to Boston and Ted Kennedy appeared at a CJP event. Steve Grossman introduced us and we spoke. Actually Ted Kennedy spoke - I was speechless. I was speechless because Ted Kennedy was the living embodiment of my best dreams for America and for the world. He was a great leader all by himself but also a symbol of something that powerfully changed my life and the aspirations of my generation.

These changes started with JFK. I never met John F. Kennedy though his picture was on my desk from the day he was murdered in 1963 until I graduated from social work school in 1970. I handed out campaign fliers on the Grand Concourse and Fordham Road in the Bronx when he ran for President. I was 13 and it was 1960. His election taught me something about ideas and the possibility of change.

I did meet Robert Kennedy. During the middle of the Cuban missile crisis, he came to speak at a Democratic Party fundraiser at the Concourse Plaza Hotel where I was working at the time. I was 15 and scared out of my mind.

Robert kept the dream alive. When he ran for the US Senate from New York in 1965, I chaired Students for Kennedy at City College, and I worked for him again when he ran for President in 1968…..a last hope for peace and justice at a time when I was obsessed with both. His assassination, like his brother’s, was shattering.

By the time I met Ted Kennedy, most of my political energy was focused on our Jewish community and its hopes and dreams, for Soviet and Ethiopian Jewry, for a strong Israel, and for justice for the poor and forgotten of our community and of the broader community within which we live.

And whenever the Jewish community needed help, Ted Kennedy was always there. Ted Kennedy was a tireless advocate for Soviet Jewry and went to the Soviet Union to meet with refuseniks on many occasions. Ted Kennedy advocated for their freedom and he advocated for Israel. Through war and peace he always listened. He was always there. He never refused a meeting and he always stood up for Israel.

Ted Kennedy despised anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred bigotry and racism. Ted Kennedy was our own Massachusetts hero and a symbol of the determination of Americans and Jews everywhere for justice and righteousness.

If his brothers were the symbol of the dream that drove and continues to drive my generation, Ted represented the hard work required, day in and day out to turn those dreams into reality. Boston, Massachusetts, our people, the Jews of Greater Boston and all the oppressed of the earth will all miss him.

Our condolences are extended to his entire family.

From the Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA):

I am saddened by the news of Senator Edward Kennedy’s passing and express my condolences to the Kennedy family. Our country has lost a great leader who tirelessly defended the basic rights of all Americans and stood on the side of those people who were most vulnerable. He devoted his decades-long career in the U.S. Senate to advancing the causes of economic justice, immigration reform, and universal health care. His dedication to making government more just and compassionate has been an inspiration to Americans of many faith traditions. Senator Kennedy had a gift for reaching out to religious people and lifting up our shared commitment to equality and the betterment of humanity. We can honor Senator Kennedy by carrying forward his legacy of working on behalf of those who are marginalized in this country. We must – and we will – continue advocating for the living wage, immigration reform, and health care for all. By giving our resources and commitment to the causes of fairness and equality, we move toward realizing the American dream to which Kennedy dedicated his years of public service.

From the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston:

The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston (JCRC) is deeply saddened by the passing of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. A model of dedication to the Commonwealth and the nation as a whole, Senator Kennedy embodied the values that our community stands for - social and economic justice, and the fair treatment for all Americans, including its most vulnerable citizens. His ability to create unlikely alliances allowed for a legacy of significant accomplishments in the Senate that have improved the lives of countless Americans. Senator Kennedy was also a true and loyal friend to the State of Israel and provided unwavering support to her in her quest for peace over the years. His leadership in these areas and more will be sorely missed.

Nancy K. Kaufman, Executive Director, said, "Ted Kennedy, who was my Senator from the time I could vote, exhibited his commitment to core Jewish values. Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly with us on major issues such as health care reform, care for the poor, disabled, and elderly, advocacy for former Soviet Jewry, and support for Israel." Ms. Kaufman stated, "We will all miss his passion and his commitment to democratic issues and values, and we must continue his legacy of advocacy for social justice. May his memory be for a blessing always."

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Kennedy family and all the individuals who were touched by the work and compassion of Senator Kennedy.

From the Anti-Defamation League's New England region:

The Anti-Defamation League New England mourns the death of long time friend Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) following his long and courageous battle with brain cancer.

We mourn the passing of the Senator, a great American, a master legislator and a passionate champion of our nation’s democratic values and fundamental commitment to equality and fair treatment to all.

Senator Kennedy’s leadership on immigration reform was instrumental. Upon the 50th anniversary of his brother, President John F. Kennedy’s essay, "A Nation of Immigrants," ADL reissued the book. Senator Kennedy wrote in the introduction, "The urgent issue before us is about the future of America. It is about our pride for our immigrant past and our pride for our immigrant future."

Esta Epstein, Regional Board Chair and Derrek Shulman, Regional Director praised the work, legacy and the path that Senator Kennedy brought to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the world. "We will continue to champion his values and work as we move forward."

From Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, a progressive evangelical organization:

In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential elections, the Democrats were roundly accused of losing the "moral values voters" in America, and of being the party of "secularists" who were hostile to faith and religion. The very first Democrat to call me and ask to talk about that accusation and how to change the moral debate in America was Ted Kennedy. He invited me to his home, where he, and his wife Vicki, engaged me in a long and very thoughtful conversation, into the night, about the relationship between faith, morality, and politics. Their own deep Catholic faith was evident and their articulation of it very impressive. Our discussion was not partisan at all--it was not about how to win religion back for the Democrats. Rather, we focused on the great moral issues facing the nation, and how we as people of faith needed to respond to them.

On the occasion of his death, I pray that God may now move us as a nation to address the greatest commitment of Senator Kennedy's life--the need for a comprehensive reform of the health care system in America--as a deeply moral issue and one that calls forth the very best that is within us. May we honor the life and death of Senator Edward Kennedy by laying aside the rancor, lies, fear, and even hate that has come to dominate the health care debate in America this summer; and regain our moral compass by recovering the moral core of this debate: that too many Americans are hurting and suffering in a broken and highly inequitable health care system; and that it is our moral obligation to repair and reform it--Now.

From Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good:

It is with great sadness that we mourn the loss of Senator Edward Kennedy. Senator Kennedy, a man of deep and abiding Catholic faith, dedicated his life to noble public service. In pursuing the common good and advocating for human dignity around the globe, Senator Kennedy’s 46 year career was a reflection of the core values of the Catholic Social Tradition. He championed the cause of justice for the poor, the immigrant, and the most vulnerable and throughout his career demonstrated the value of civility, compassion, and compromise on matters of critical public concern. May Senator Kennedy’s deep faith and commitment to the common good serve as a model for us all.

From Catholic Democrats:

Catholic Democrats mourns the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), one of the most important Catholic political leaders in our country's history. The third longest serving member of the Senate, Kennedy's life exemplified a commitment to public service. His irreplaceable brand of leadership in Congress and to the nation led to the passage of unprecedented landmark legislation that covered a broad range of social justice issues which reflected both Catholic Social Teaching and his deep personal faith. He touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people, providing for their fundamental human needs, opening doors of opportunity, and helping create a more just society.

"Senator Kennedy's Catholicism was at the core of his identity," said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats. "The common thread that runs through everything he accomplished was his belief in building things for the benefit of others, particularly those most in need. I believe this is the essence of being a good Catholic, and I think it's right at the heart of Senator Kennedy's entire legacy."

"The 'Lion of the Senate', Senator Kennedy brought the passion of his beliefs to, in his own words, "all those whose cares have been our concern" while at the same time reconciling differences between his colleagues from both sides of the aisle. He was both a fighter and a healer. He fought for universal health care, "the cause of my lifetime" he said, until the very end of his life. Both Republican and Democratic leaders will greatly miss his leadership in making universal health care a reality," said Whelan, a pediatric specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"Senator Kennedy's passing is an immeasurable loss to our country and the world. He inspired liberals and earned the respect of conservatives. He was the conscience of our nation, particularly on the necessity of providing health care to all and on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "His remarkable life's journey - one of overcoming insurmountable challenges through faith - provides inspiration for all of us in our own personal journeys and in serving the common good."

"We offer our most heartfelt prayers to the Senator's family in this time of sadness. There will never be another Ted Kennedy," said Whelan.

(Photo of Cardinal O'Malley taken in Cuba by AFP/Getty Images on August 18, 2009. Photo of Barry Shrage courtesy of Combined Jewish Philanthropies. Photo of Rev. Morales courtesy of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Photo of Nancy Kaufman taken in Boston by Janet Knott of the Globe staff on August 19, 1999. Photo of Jim Wallis taken in Boston by Wiqan Ang for the Boston Globe on February 11, 2008.)

A pretty funny anecdote courtesy of McKay Coppins, the twentysomething blogger for MormonTimes:

"If Mormons had cocktail parties, I would probably tell this story at one: When my family lived in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney served as our stake president.

Yes, yes, THE Mitt Romney. It was, of course, before his stint at the Salt Lake City Olympics and his gubernatorial term.

One night, my parents were at Blockbuster and they happened to run into President Romney. They chatted for a bit, and my parents mentioned they were having trouble picking a movie to rent. Much to my parents' surprise, Mitt enthusiastically suggested the 1993 Mike Myers comedy, 'So I Married an Axe Murderer'."

Sadly, there are no more details about whether the Mittster is generally a fan of the Myers oeuvre, or just films about mariticide (that's husband-killing). I have to confess I've never seen "So I Married an Axe Murderer" (should I add it to my Netflix list?) but I was pretty sure it's not a slasher film, given Mitt's faith-based aversion to R-rated films (he told me in 2007 that, although he has seen an occasional R-rated film, at Bain he had passed up an entertainment industry investment because "I did not want to be associated with making R-rated movies or selling R-rated movies"). But, despite its title, "Axe Murderer" is harmless. I looked it up. It's rated PG-13.

Mark Silk at Trinity College makes an interesting, if counterintuitive, observation: the more Catholic a state's population, the more likely its residents are to support same-sex marriage. From Mark's blog, Spiritual Politics:

"Six of the eight states where 50 percent or more of the public supports gay marriage are the states with the highest proportion of Catholics, ranging from Rhode Island at 46 percent to New York and California at 37 percent. Meanwhile, the eight states most opposed to gay marriage include six of the seven with the lowest proportion of Catholics, from Alabama at six percent to North Carolina at nine percent. In other words, support for same-sex marriage is directly related to the proportion of Catholics in a given state."

It's not entirely clear to me what this means. Mark takes a dig at the Catholic hierarchy, saying, "Way to go, bishops!", but over at USA Today's Faith & Reason blog, Cathy Lynn Grossman points out that, "The bishops have campaigned long, loudly and clearly against same-sex marriage but the Catholic Church also offers a pervasive message of social justice, an umbrella many liberal Catholics stand under when they argue for marriage equality or life issues such as abortion, contraception and end-of-life decisions." There's much for social scientists to mull over here -- I suspect that the states that rate high in support for same-sex marriage also have high levels of support for other liberal causes, and whether that is because of, or in spite of, the religious makeup of the population strikes me as an unanswered question. Also, here in New England, which is a region with high Catholic population, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts clearly had an impact on views in neighboring states, so it's possible that for some states the religious makeup of the population is less important than proximity to Massachusetts. Still, food for thought.

(Photo, by Spencer Platt/Getty, shows a couple on their motorcycle in the annual New York City Gay Pride March on June 28, 2009.)

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston, is expressing opposition to a possible cut to state-subsidized health insurance coverage for some legal immigrants.

Here's the relevant portion of his most recent blog entry:

"As I do upon occasion, before I get to the events of my week, I would like to comment on an issue that is of great importance to me.

The Governor and the Legislature in the commonwealth face excruciatingly difficult choices this week. Final decisions about the budget bring together the fact of an economy in deep recession, declining state revenues and multiple human needs among the citizens of the commonwealth. Those human needs — for nutrition, housing and health care — must be a high priority for the Church and its ministry.

Our agencies — Catholic Charities, the Caritas Health Care System and the Office of Planning and Urban Affairs — are stretched to the limit these days, but that is the work we should be doing.

A particular issue of concern to me is the possibility that funding for health coverage for 28,000 legal immigrants may be cut in whole or in part. The Church, through Catholic Charities and through our parishes, is in direct and regular service of the immigrant community.

My hope and my request is that a way can be found to sustain health coverage for these legal members of our community. Their resources are few and their support system is always stretched thin. The commonwealth has done a very commendable job of providing health care to the citizens of Massachusetts. It would be a tragic mistake to let these 28,000 members of our community lose access to the precious good of health care."

(Photo, by John Blanding of the Globe staff, shows Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston in Gloucester on June 28, 2009.)

President Obama today met with the top Mormon church official in the country, Thomas S. Monson, whose title is president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and who is revered by Mormons as prophet, seer and revelator. Monson was accompanied by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who is also a Mormon.

Here is the statement from the church:

"President Barack Obama was presented with five large leather-bound volumes today by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that detail his family history going back multiple generations covering hundreds of years. The presentation was made by Church President Thomas S. Monson and Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They were accompanied by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who is also a member of the Church.

President Monson said: 'President Obama’s heritage is rich with examples of leadership, sacrifice and service. We were very pleased to research his family history and are honored to present it to him today.'

Elder Oaks, who oversees the Church’s family history program, said, 'The Church has great resources and experience in genealogy work, and we are proud to have researched such a unique and impressive family history.'

'I thank President Monson and Elder Oaks for sharing our religion’s tradition of genealogical research with the president and his family,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 'I am also glad that President Obama and Elder Oaks had an opportunity to discuss their shared passion of the law. Recognizing the president and first lady's deep regard for family, I am honored that our church can have any part in documenting their family history.'

The Church has also presented personal histories to other U.S. presidents, including Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton."

Here is the statement from the White House:

"The President issued the following statement after meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and leaders of the LDS Church at the White House today: 'I enjoyed my meeting with President Monson and Elder Oaks. I'm grateful for the genealogical records that they brought with them and am looking forward to reading through the materials with my daughters. It's something our family will treasure for years to come.'"

And here is coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune.

(Photo, by Pete Souza of the White House, shows President Barack Obama reviewing geneaological records with (from left) Senator Harry Reid; Joshua DuBois, Director of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; LDS Church President Thomas Monson and LDS Elder Dallin Oaks in the Oval Office, July 20, 2009.)

President Obama met today at the White House with a group of Jewish leaders. The White House press office offered only a brief summary of the meeting, and a list of participants. Here it is:

Description of meeting with leaders from the Jewish community:

"The President met with more than a dozen leaders from the Jewish community today for approximately 45 minutes. They had a substantive discussion, ranging from Middle East peace efforts and Iran, to reforming our health care system and policies to address global hunger. The President reiterated his unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, and reiterated his commitment to working to achieve Middle East peace."

Participants:

Alan Solow, Chairman, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Lee Rosenberg, President-elect, AIPAC
David Victor, President, AIPAC
Malcolm Honlein, Executive Vice Chairman, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Jason Isaacson, Director of Government and International Affairs, American Jewish Committee
Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council of Jewish Women
Kathy Manning, Chair, Executive Committee, United Jewish Communities
Andrea Weinstein, Chair, Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Marla Gilson, Washington Director, Hadassah
Stephen Savitsky, President, Orthodox Union
Rabbi Steven Wernick, Executive Vice President and CEO, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President, Union for Reform Judaism
Ira Forman, Chief Executive Officer, National Jewish Democratic Council
Debra DeLee, President and CEO, Americans for Peace Now
Jeremy Ben Ami, Executive Director, J STREET

There are early stories at the Huffington Post, Politico, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

(Photo, by Robert Giroux/Getty Images, shows President Obama at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington on July 13, 2009.)

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the ailing scion of the nation's most famous Catholic family, drafted a personal letter to Pope Benedict XVI that was hand-delivered to the Vatican today by President Obama.

Although neither the Vatican nor Kennedy's office released details of the letter, and the White House said the president hadn't read it, the missive immediately captured the imagination of Catholics, reinforcing both the sense of the senator as someone reaching out for help, and reminding the nation of the special place the Kennedys have held in American Catholic lore.

The president, who has become a close ally of Kennedy since the storied Massachusetts Democrat endorsed his presidential campaign, asked the pope to pray for the senator during a meeting at the Vatican, and then, after the meeting ended, phoned the senator and talked with him for ten minutes to fill him in on the conversation.

"I find it quite moving,'' said the Rev. Robert P. Imbelli, a Catholic theologian at Boston College. "Clearly, when one Catholic asks another to pray for him, this is a sign both of vulnerability and of trust. To have the opportunity to ask that of the pope is, in addition, a sign of devotion and respect for the one Catholics hold to be the successor of St. Peter with a special role in maintaining the unity and apostolic tradition of the church.''

And R. Scott Appleby, a historian at the University of Notre Dame, said, "Catholicism as a cultural and ethnic identity clearly runs deep in the Kennedy clan. Among individual members, the depth of commitment to the Church itself varies—as with many Catholic families. It seems clear, and it is poignant and instructive, that Senator Kennedy seeks peace and reconciliation with 'Holy Mother Church' as he nears the end of his earthly life."

Kennedy's office declined to release the letter or discuss its contents; his spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, e-mailed, "It's a personal letter. End of story."

But the act of reaching out to the pope, while the senator is struggling with brain cancer, is in many ways a traditional act of a religious person reaching out to a spiritual leader, particularly when struggling with illness or other trouble.

"Catholics, and so many others, reach out for prayers in their time of need, as Senator Kennedy does so now,'' said Sister Mary Ann Walsh , the spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "The entire Catholic community prays at Sunday Mass for the sick and for government leaders during the Prayer of the Faithful and their prayers are with him. Senator Kennedy recognizes the prayerfulness of the Holy Father and his reaching out to the head of the Catholic Church is a very understandable human and Catholic action."

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese , a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, also noted that the delivery of the letter reflects the president's acknowledgment of the role played by the pope for Catholics.

"This kindness to Kennedy shows that Obama recognizes the pope is a pastor and not just a world leader,'' Reese said.

The Kennedys have long had a special relationship with the Catholic Church by virtue of their prominence in American politics. Kennedy's father, Joseph P. Kennedy , was an ambassador to Britain when he represented the United States at the coronation of Pope Pius XII back in 1939, and since that time many members of the Kennedy family have met with various popes. When Senator Kennedy's older brother, John F. Kennedy , was running for president in 1960, he had to battle anti-Catholic allegations that he would be controlled by the Vatican; he famously overcame such concerns to become the nation's first Catholic president, a fact the White House cited yesterday in announcing its delivery of a letter from the senator to the pope.

"The president delivered a letter from Senator Kennedy to the Holy Father,'' Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough , whose brother is a priest and who has talked in recent days about the impact of Catholic social teaching on his own views, told reporters aboard Air Force One after the meeting. "He also asked that the Holy Father pray for Senator Kennedy, who as we all know is ill, and whose brother obviously broke an important barrier in our country by being the first Catholic president elected of the United States."

Senator Kennedy is at once one of the most prominent and most controversial figures in American Catholicism -- prominent because of his brother's place in history, and his own lengthy career as the leading liberal lion of the senate, but controversial because of his support for abortion rights and gay rights and occasionally because of his own personal failings and misdeeds. But he has largely ignored the periodic denunciations of his Catholic-ness from conservatives within the church. After his mother died, he attended daily Mass for a year; before he got sick, he periodically attended Mass in Washington and on the Cape, and attended key ceremonies of the Archdiocese of Boston and other major church events, including the funeral of Pope John Paul II in Rome.

In 2005, when Benedict -- then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- was elected to the papacy, Kennedy issued a congratulatory statement, saying, "Vicki and I congratulate Pope Benedict XVI and pray that his pontificate will bring healing to the entire world and to all people of every faith."

Then last year, when Benedict visited the United States, Kennedy issued a statement welcoming him, and attended the papal Mass at Nationals Park in Washington, declaring, “Pope Benedict’s visit to the United States and our capital city is an extraordinary opportunity to strengthen and reflect on the power of faith during this difficult time for our country and for the entire world.”

(Photo, by Getty Images, shows Pope Benedict XVI greeting First Lady Michelle Obama and President Obama at the Vatican today, July 10, 2009.)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough just briefed the news media aboard Air Force One (en route from Rome to Accra) about today's meeting between President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI. Note that the president gave the pope a letter from Senator Kennedy (deep in transcript):

"MR. McDONOUGH: Hey, everybody. We just had a short talk with the President about his meeting with the Holy Father. Before the President met with the Holy Father, he spent about 10 or -- yes, about 10 minutes with Cardinal Bertone. They talked about a range of issues. The Cardinal also, underscoring the fact that they had little -- insufficient time, underscored that he would share a longer note with the President, which he looks very much forward to receiving. FULL ENTRY

The pope and the president have met. I'm still waiting for the statements and briefings, but in the meantime, here's a photo of the happy pair, plus first lady Michelle Obama, posing for photographers after their conversation at the Vatican:

My editor asks why Michelle Obama is dressed in black and veiled. Here's an attempt at an answer from USA Today, tackling the same question when first lady Laura Bush visited the pope in 2006. Bottom line: tradition.

(Photo by Jason Reed/Reuters)

Tomorrow (Friday) is the much-anticipated first meeting between President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI, and there's lots of discussion about what to expect. The two men have shared interests in economic and environmental issues, but those have generally been overshadowed by the abortion divide, which has dominated reaction to the Obama presidency by the Catholic church hierarchy in the United States.

This afternoon, Catholic Democrats held a teleconference to talk about the pope's recent encyclical and tomorrow's meeting; while on the phone, I asked US Representatives Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Rosa L. DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, whether they view the pope-president meeting as largely symbolic, or as having some more substantive significance.

Here's what McGovern, who represents central and southeastern Massachusetts, including Worcester, had to say:

"In the past, they have been symbolic meetings that have amounted to more than photo ops and a nice press release. But my sense of President Obama is that he doesn't do symbolism. He's not going through the motions. This is a man who ran for president with a deep desire to change the world for the better, and I believe that he really wants to change things. And I think this pope, with the encyclical that he has issued, has put forward a framework, not just for the US, but for the world. I have high expectations for this meeting. I believe this meeting has the potential to have a lasting impact, not only to inspire, but to provide political cover to move forward in some areas that have been difficult for politicians to deal with – the delicate crisis in the MidEast, or poverty, or hunger. My hope and my expectation is that it will be about real things, and results-oriented. I'm very, very hopeful.''

And here's DeLauro, who represents south central Connecticut, including New Haven:

FULL ENTRY

President Obama this morning met with a select group of reporters for Catholic publications, as well as the religion reporter for the Washington Post. Obama outlined his thoughts on the upcoming visit to the pope, his relationship with American bishops, the abortion issue, economic justice, and the Middle East. There was no major news, but Obama revealed a couple things I had not previously known about his faith life -- first, that he is considering choosing a group of churches in Washington, rather than a single congregation, to reduce the impact of his presence on any one community. And second, the president said that Joshua DuBois, the president's faith adviser, sends Obama's BlackBerry a devotional prayer each morning for the president to reflect on.

The president opened with a preview of his meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, which is scheduled to take place July 10 at the Vatican:

FULL ENTRY

Governor Deval Patrick, who was scheduled to headline the inaugural breakfast for the new Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury Crossing tomorrow (Friday) morning, has had to cancel his appearance in order to attend the funeral of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.

The mosque has been controversial, and local Muslims were excited about Patrick's appearance as a signal of the mosque's acceptance by the broader community. But Patrick's spokesman, Kyle Sullivan, said that Patrick is cancelling only because he wanted to attend the funeral of the late Kevin Dupont, of Templeton, who died after a Humvee in which he was riding struck a bomb. Patrick has made a practice of attending every funeral for a fallen serviceman or woman in Massachusetts.

Patrick has agreed to tape a video tribute to be played at the breakfast, and his deputy press secretary, Kimberly A. Haberlin, just sent me the following statement from the governor:

"As the President stated so eloquently during his address in Cairo earlier this month, the United States is entering a new era of partnership with our Muslim brothers and sisters, both abroad and here at home, and the Center will play a vital role in that partnership in Massachusetts. I congratulate the Islamic Cultural Center on their commitment to enriching our community life."

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino is still planning to attend the ribbon-cutting, and I called him up this afternoon to ask why. Here's what he said:

"When you're mayor, you're mayor of all the people, not some of them, and the folks who are part of the mosque, and Muslims, are part of the city.''

I asked the mayor what he made of all the controversy that has surrounded the mosque. His reply:

"It has been controversial, and there is controversy when you have a religion from those countries. But we've got to start building those bridges. Yes, The David Project has been objecting, but I can't pick and choose. This is the religion they believe, the religion they practice. Are there some extremists in Islam? No question. But do I have some in my religion? Yes, there are. We have to get beyond that.''

We're publishing a story, video, and photo gallery about the mosque opening tomorrow morning in the paper and here on Boston.com, and I'll be liveblogging the inaugural events here as well.

(Top photo, by Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff, shows Gov. Deval Patrick at Thayer Public Library in Braintree on May 11, 2009. Bottom photo, by Wendy Maeda/Globe Staff, shows Mayor Thomas Menino at the Boston Harbor Hotel on June 9, 2009.)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (right) has just confirmed that President Obama will meet with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome. Here is the transcript, courtesy of the White House:

"MR. GIBBS: Just one quick announcement before we get going with questions. On his upcoming trip overseas, on Friday, July 10, the President will visit with the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI to discuss a range of issues, including their shared belief in the dignity of all people. That's on the upcoming trip.

Q Does he have a church --

MR. GIBBS: I can assure you, April, we're not joining a church in Italy. (Laughter.)

Q I didn't ask that.

MR. GIBBS: I know. But you know what I did? I just fast-forwarded right to the follow-up. (Laughter.) I'm going to do that -- that's actually what I'm going to do all today. So if I don't answer your question, I will presume your follow-up and answer that instead. (Laughter.)

Q That's very efficient.

MR. GIBBS: Right, this will be like a 10-minute deal.

Q Is Mrs. Obama going to the Vatican, as well?

MR. GIBBS: She will, as far as I know, be on the entire trip, yes."

(Photo, by Ron Edmonds/AP, shows White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs speaking to reporters during his daily press briefing at the White House on June 24, 2009.)

Pope Benedict XVI and President Obama are scheduled to have their first meeting July 10, Catholic News Service reports:

"Discussions between popes and U.S. presidents usually focus on common concerns regarding world events and the church's concerns over issues or policies with special moral relevance. So in addition to discussing ongoing tensions in the Middle East, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation in Iraq, Pope Benedict likely will bring up his concerns regarding abortion policy in the United States and renewed government permission for embryonic stem-cell research."

The visit, although in many ways unsurprising, will no doubt occasion an examination of the complex relationship between the president and the Catholic Church. Obama won the Catholic vote last fall, but before and after the election has been repeatedly criticized by Catholic prelates in the U.S. for his support of abortion rights. The Vatican, primarily through its newspaper, has offered a more nuanced take, to the dismay of some American Catholic conservatives. On foreign policy and environmental matters, Obama arguably is closer to the Vatican's views than was his predecessor, President George W. Bush. And because Obama is not Catholic, his visit does not raise some of the questions that came up when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is Catholic, visited the pontiff in February.

(Photo on left, by Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News, shows President Obama at a news conference at the White House in Washington on June 23, 2009. Photo on right, by Pier Paolo Cito/AP, shows Pope Benedict XVI at Padre Pio's shrine in San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, on June 21, 2009.)

President Obama gave his much-anticipated speech on Islam in Cairo today.

A few quick observations:

• Obama offered considerable praise for Islam, opening his speech with the Arabic greeting, "Assalaamu alaykum," as he called for "a new beginning," and as he issued a lengthy plea for peace. Each time he quoted from the Koran, and there were several, he was cheered (and he was also cheered when he talked of democracy and of women's rights). And he referred directly to the role of Islam in his own family history, saying, "I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith."

• Obama's estimate for the population of Muslims in the United States -- 7 million -- is higher than that used by many social scientists, and is likely to be the subject of some debate. "Let there be no doubt,'' he said. "Islam is a part of America."

• He clearly rejected denial of the role that terror played in 9/11, or any conspiracy theories about what happened that day. "Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale."

• He also specifically rejected Holocaust denial. "Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful." But he used that subject as a segue into his discussion of the concerns of Palestinians, saying, "it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland,'' and "Let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable."

• He denounced "violent extremism" and violence, saying, "violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.'' And he noted that African Americans in the United States won their own struggle for rights without violence.

• He called for religious freedom in the Muslim world, saying, "Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s." But he also suggested the West can do better, saying of the US, "rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat." And he implicitly criticized countries such as France, saying, "It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism."

There is much more to chew on -- Obama talked about Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, the economy, nuclear weapons, women's rights, democracy, as well as religious issues. The full text of his speech is below.

What did you think?

(Photo, by Gerald Herbert/AP, shows President Obama touring the Sultan Hassan Mosque with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Cairo today, June 4, 2009.)

Here is the text, as prepared for delivery, of President Obama's speech to Muslims in Cairo today:

FULL ENTRY

The White House tonight announced that President Obama is nominating Miguel H. Díaz (right), a Catholic theologian from Minnesota, as ambassador to the Holy See. Here's the White House bio for Díaz:

"Dr. Miguel Díaz is a Professor of Theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota. He is the co-editor of the book 'From the Heart of Our People: Explorations in Catholic Systematic Theology' and author of 'On Being Human: U.S. Hispanic and Rahnerian Perspectives,' named 'Best Book of the Year' by the Hispanic Theological Initiative at Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Díaz taught Religious Studies and Theology at Barry University, the University of Dayton and the University of Notre Dame. From 2001 to 2003, he taught and served as Academic Dean at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Florida. He is a Board Member of the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) and Past President of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States (ACHTUS). Dr. Díaz holds a B.A. from St. Thomas University and a M.A. and PhD in Theology from the University of Notre Dame."

The College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, where Díaz teaches, has posted more detail in a news release, and says that Díaz's academic interests are "the Trinity, theological anthropology and Latino/a theologies."

Early analysis from Mark Silk at Trinity College in Hartford:

"For starters, with Sotomayor this makes for a serious one-two punch with Latinos. It's very interesting that he's a theologian rather than your basic Catholic pol or lawyer type. He served on Obama's Catholic Advisory Board during the campaign, which puts him firmly in the Kmiec camp. This strikes me as the shrewdest of moves, and one that will cause no end of teeth-grinding on the Catholic right, including the likes of Archbishop Burke. But we await learned commentary from his co-religionists.

Update: Turns out Diaz is a consultant to Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Big win for social-justice, common-ground Catholics.

Exegesis: Catholic conservatives would be free to rail against a pro-Obama Catholic politician. 'Not a real Catholic,' etc. A pro-Obama Catholic theologian who teaches at a major seminary, well, that's a different story. And the fact that he's a Latino working on issues in Hispanic theology, at a time where we're experiencing the Latinization of the American Catholic Church--that's a ten-strike."

And from Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, a liberal-leaning group:

"Catholics United is thrilled to learn that Dr. Miguel Diaz has been nominated as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. Dr. Diaz is a devout Catholic, a respected theologian, a leader in the Catholic Latino community, and a dedicated husband and father of four children. We have full confidence that he will serve our nation well and we invite all Catholics to join us in celebrating this historic nomination."

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the liberal organization to which Díaz serves as a theological consultant, said:

"Professor Díaz has always connected his impressive body of academic scholarship and intellectual rigor with an unwavering commitment to living out the social justice tenets of our faith. Professor Díaz has been an invaluable source of support and theological insight for our organization and the broader Catholic social justice community. Our nation could have no better representative to the Holy See than Professor Díaz. This is a proud day for the Alliance and all Catholics dedicated to the common good."

Two Bostonians have recently served in the position of ambassador to the Holy See -- Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, and former Boston Mayor Raymond L. Flynn.

(Photo courtesy of the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University.)

Here is the text of the speech by Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, introducing President Obama at today's commencement, and reflecting on the associated controversy:

"President Obama, Fr. Hesburgh, Judge Noonan, Members of the Board of Trustees, Members of the faculty, staff, alumni, friends, parents, and most of all – the Notre Dame Class of 2009:

Several autumns ago, you came to Notre Dame from home….now Notre Dame has become home. And it always will be. For home is not where you live. Home is where you belong. You will always belong – and I pray you will always feel you belong – here at Notre Dame.

You are … ND.

In my four years as President of your University – I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world. They hope that Notre Dame will be one of the great universities in the nation, but they also hope that it will send forth graduates who -- grounded in deep moral values -- can help solve the world’s toughest problems.

FULL ENTRY

A few observations on the commencement ceremony now wrapping up at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend:

• President Obama was given an enormously enthusiastic welcome by the crowd. The one time I heard a heckler erupt (I was watching the webcast) he was drowned out by cheers. Obama was repeatedly given ovations and applause.

• The Rev. John I. Jenkins, president of the university, devoted almost the entirety of his introduction to a passionate and forceful defense of the university's decision to invite Obama to give the address, and to grant him an honorary degree. He lamented the tone of the debate, saying to the graduates, "The world you enter today is torn by division – and is fixed on its differences," and that "too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others.'' He rued what he said was the demonization of others in American culture, and referred to "hateful divisions" among human beings.

• Jenkins, who has faced criticism from dozens of bishops and hundreds of thousands of lay Catholics for allowing an abortion-rights supporting president to be honored at a Catholic university, praised Obama for agreeing to speak despite the substantive disagreement and the ensuing controversy. Jenkins said, "President Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research."

Then, he added, "Others might have avoided this venue for that reason, but President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.'' And Jenkins outlined a series of reasons for honoring Obama, mentioning his positions on education and health care and foreign relations and war, as well as his accomplishment in becoming the first African-American president of the United States.

• Obama spoke for about 31 minutes, drawing repeated applause, even for saying, simply, "I am honored to be here today.'' Then, noting that "I know it has not been without controversy,'' Obama addressed at some length the tension in American culture over the abortion issue. He said that, "Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved." And, on abortion, he outlined a series of steps that he said the two sides should agree on, including reducing the number of women seeking abortions, reducing unintended pregnancies, making adoption more available, and providing "care and support for women who do carry their children to term.'' He also indicated that he is open to "a sensible conscience clause" for health care workers, suggesting that he is open to compromise on that front.

• Obama also said the abortion issue is not likely to go away. "The fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable,'' he said.

• Obama paid striking homage to two Catholic icons, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who he said he encountered as a community organizer working in Catholic-sponsored groups in Chicago, and the former Notre Dame president, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, who will turn 92 this week, and who Obama praised for his role in the civil rights movement. In turn, Notre Dame gave Obama a framed photograph of Hesburgh and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., holding hands and singing "We Shall Overcome" at a civil rights event.

Here is the full text of Obama's remarks, as released by the White House:

FULL ENTRY

Did Mitt Romney lose the GOP nomination in 2008 because he is a Mormon? It appears that RNC chairman Michael Steele (above) thinks so.

"It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism," Steele said on a radio program Friday, in which he also cited Romney's about-face on abortion.

Romney objected, and Steele apologized. But was he right?

Over at Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk blogs, "Michael Steele has apologized to Mitt Romney for telling the truth about his candidacy."

And at God & Country, Dan Gilgoff blogs, "It's bad form to accuse the GOP base of being anti-Mormon, not to mention telling someone that his religion is a political impediment. But Steele's analysis strikes me as pretty solid."

(Photo above, by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images, shows RNC Chairman Michael Steele arriving at the 2009 White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington on May 9, 2009.)

The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life last week reported a finding that at first blush is stunning: the more often one attends religious services, the more likely one is to say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists is at least sometimes justified. And white evangelical Protestants are the most likely subgroup to offer at least some support for torture, while those who are not affiliated with a religious denomination are the least likely.

Here's the graphic from Pew:

The finding has occasioned, not surprisingly, quite a bit of discussion. Andrew Sullivan, in a post headlined "Jesus Wept,'' calls the result "terribly depressing,'' and writes:

"So Christian devotion correlates with approval for absolute evil in America. And people wonder why atheism is gaining in this country.''

Over at Christianity Today, David Neff blogged:

"The immediate impression is that religion — especially religion characterized by active commitment — makes people bloodthirsty. Or something like that. What can we say about this picture? First, the survey is probably accurate. Other studies have shown similar results...Second, there is (as there always is) a gap between leadership beliefs and grassroots attitudes...The key leaders of most evangelical denominations and parachurch organizations have gone on the record against the use of torture."

Neff, who is editor-in-chief of the Christianity Today Media Group, goes on to argue that evangelicals should be against torture always, despite the "Does it work?" debate:

"Utilitarian ethics tends to weigh the magnitude of a potential good against its costs (the greatest good for the greatest number). But evangelicals have been eager to reject utilitarian ethics when addressing other issues — embryonic stem-cell research and population-control programs, for example. Even if embryonic stem-cell research turned out to be the best way to cure Parkinson’s disease, most evangelicals would oppose it, just as we would oppose abortion even if it were shown to reduce, say, food insecurity. By the same token, even if torture produced reliable information about terrorist activity, we should reject it. We are people of principle. Our principles were historically at the root of human rights action and the development of the Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions, and any number of other moral crusades that put principle above utilitarianism. Our principles should now motivate us to lead the world in rejecting torture of any human being, for any reason."

At Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk observes:

"The real point here is that moral issues are tied into a whole array of ethical and political values and commitments. Explaining a particular position on a particular issue at a particular time according to religious identity or commitment is a complicated undertaking. One thing should, however, be clear. In this regard there are few if any slippery moral slopes. The oft-cited claim by the pro-life community that support for abortion rights leads individuals and communities inevitably into moral squalor cannot be sustained--certainly not when it comes to opposition to torture. The most anti-torture element in American society--the Nones--is also the most pro-choice."

Of course, the other element that I don't see discussed anywhere is simply partisanship. Evangelicals, and frequent churchgoers, are more likely to vote Republican; it was a Republican presidential administration, of George W. Bush, that allowed interrogation practices many have now concluded constituted torture; and the debate over torture today is, in some ways, a proxy for a debate over the conduct of the Bush administration. It seems to me it might be difficult in survey research to disentangle attitudes toward torture from attitudes toward the Bush Administration's legacy in general, and response to terrorism in particular.

President Obama last night was sort of asked about the controversy over his scheduled commencement address and honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame, and he sort of answered. The exchange:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.

(Photo, by Charles Dharapak/AP, shows President Obama walking down the Cross Hall before the start of a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington on 4/29/09. )

Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights organization in New York, yesterday released a video (above) and a pamphlet featuring a group of liberal Massachusetts clergy arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage has not led to restrictions on religious freedom. The video and pamphlet are being used by the New York organization as part of its campaign in that state, where the governor last week introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Empire State Pride Agenda says the Massachusetts clergy are being cited to rebut claims by conservative religious organizations that the legalization of gay marriage threatens religious freedom.

The clergy interviewed, all of whom support same-sex marriage but some of whom are not allowed by their denominations to officiate at same-sex weddings, point out that most Massachusetts clergy do not officiate at same sex marriages (they're not allowed to, by religious authorities, in Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, or evangelical churches, or in Orthodox synagogues or in mosques) and said that there has been no government pressure on them to do so.

I called up the conservative Massachusetts Family Institute and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference to get their thoughts; not surprisingly, they see the landscape differently. They believe that confrontation between public policy (supporting gay marriage) and religious denominations (that oppose gay marriage) is inevitable, although they acknowledge that it hasn't happened yet. But they point to the state requirement that Catholic Charities be willing to place adoptive children with same-sex couples in order to continue participating in a state adoption program as an example of how this kind of tension plays out. I have a story, "Clergy lend voices to marriage debate,'' in today's paper.

Greetings from Orem, Utah, where I'm attending a conference on "Mormonism in the Public Mind" at Utah Valley University. I'm here because I was the keynote speaker yesterday, talking about Mormonism and the media, and I'll have more to say about that, and some of my travels through Mormondom this week, a bit later. But first, some liveblogging.

This morning, a panel of three scholars took a look at Mormonism and politics, trying to extract lessons from three episodes -- the Romney campaign for president, the Proposition 8 campaign in California, and the quixotic campaign of a Utah Valley University professor, an active Mormon, who ran for the state Legislature as a Democrat in one of the most Republican areas of the country.

Boyd Petersen, the program coordinator for Mormon Studies at Utah Valley University, talked about his unsuccessful bid for the Utah Legislature, and what he learned about the close association between Mormons and the Republican Party. "Last year, I did something no sane person would do -- I ran for the state Legislature in Utah County as a Democrat -- one of the reddest county in one of the reddest states.'' Petersen described himself as "a socially conservative Democrat,'' and said his "most radical position" was that he opposed school vouchers. But what's it like to be a Mormon Democrat? This is what Petersen said:

"Many Mormon Democrats, such as me, experience frustration that we're not fully accepted into the Mormon Church tribe...Many of our fellow church members see us as apostates...Utah Mormons still ask the question, 'Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?' At times we progressive Mormons feel like we're not just a different tribe, but we're living on separate planets. The gap that divides us can seem quite unfathomable.''

Petersen argued that the strong association between Mormonism and Republicanism is not healthy for the religion, because political parties take members for granted. "Republicans know they have it in the bag, and Democrats know they don't have a chance,'' he said. Furthermore, he said, "I have known many students who have left the church because they felt excluded for progressive beliefs.''

Morris Thurston, a Mormon legal historian in southern California, talked about his experience as an active church participant who also opposed Proposition 8, the measure approved by California voters to outlaw same-sex marriage in that state. Thurston, who publicly attempted to rebut arguments in favor of Proposition 8, said that although some Mormons praised him, others "condemned me to hell for defying the prophet.'' He said there was an article in a Mormon publication that "likened those who opposed Prop. 8 to Lucifer," and said a leader in his own ward described "dissenters...like the wicked and adulterous people of Noah's Day." The campaign "was very stressful for me, and the negativity took its emotional toll,'' he said, adding, "it's difficult to be seen as a heretic.''

Thurston said he observed a very heavy involvement by the Mormon church in advocating for Proposition 8, citing meetings held in ward and stake buildings, conversations in which bishops urged members to become more active, talks in sacrament, priesthood and relief society meetings, and even commentary in fast day testimonies. "It would be difficult to understate the effectiveness of the LDS campaign,'' he said, citing doorbelling efforts, sign-holding, and election day efforts to get voters to the polls in support of Proposition 8. By contrast, he said, "the organizers of 'No on 8' came across as rank amateurs.'' Then, provocatively, Thurston noted that Brigham Young had supported slavery and opposed interracial relationships, and said, "continuing revelation sometimes results in leaders accepting conduct that earlier leaders have condemned, or condemning conduct that earlier leaders held sacred.'' Musing about the future of Mormon attitudes toward same-sex marriage, he said, "Is it possible revelation will be perceived that will change our attitudes towards our gay brothers and sisters?"

Taking a look at a different political issue, and from a different perspective, Kirk Jowers, the director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, examined the question of whether Romney's religion cost him the presidency -- an issue other scholars are also trying to evaluate. Jowers did not offer a conclusion, and did not discuss other problems with the Romney campaign, but made it clear that he believes anti-Mormonism was a key factor in Romney's disappointing performance in Iowa, which led rapidly to his withdrawal from the race. Jowers reviewed an array of anti-Mormon comments made during Romney's candidacy, and said, "religion was a critical part of his campaign...it was very difficult for him to just get a clear run.'' Jowers also said "that soft bigotry was put down with the hammer in Iowa" and "there's a great argument to be made that he lost Iowa due to his religion.''

Gallup yesterday released an analysis of poll data that shows Catholics are more liberal than non-Catholics on issues like sex (non-marital and gay) and gambling, and are split over abortion and embryonic stem cell research just like non-Catholic Americans, despite the church's clear and oft-stated teaching on those issues. Here's the data:

And here are some comments from Gallup:

"Despite the Roman Catholic Church's official opposition to abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, a Gallup analysis finds almost no difference between rank-and-file American Catholics and American non-Catholics in terms of finding the two issues morally acceptable."

"Catholics are at least slightly more liberal than non-Catholics on the issues of gambling (an issue to which the Catholic church is not totally opposed), sex between an unmarried man and woman, homosexual relations, and having a baby out of wedlock. Catholics are essentially tied with non-Catholics on the moral acceptability of abortion, divorce, and stem-cell research using human embryos. Only on the death penalty are Catholics slightly less likely than non-Catholics to find the issue morally acceptable."

Not surprisingly, Gallup finds that "committed Catholics,'' those who go to church regularly, are more in line with church teachings on these issues.

"Regular churchgoing Catholics (defined as those who attend church weekly or almost every week) are significantly less likely to find most issues measured in this research morally acceptable than are Catholics who do not attend church regularly. These committed Catholics' views on all these issues are much more in line with the church's teachings than are the views of non-practicing Catholics. However, even among committed Catholics, a slim majority seem to be at odds with the church's positions on premarital sex, embryonic stem-cell research, divorce, and the death penalty."

But there is one surprising twist: Catholics who go to church regularly are still less conservative than non-Catholics who go to church regularly, leading Gallup to conclude that "the underlying dimension of religiosity -- as measured in this analysis by church attendance -- is most predictive of conservative positions on moral issues, not whether an individual is Catholic."

"Regular churchgoers who are Catholic are significantly more liberal than churchgoing non-Catholics on gambling, sex before marriage, homosexual relations, having a baby out of wedlock, and divorce. Committed Catholics are at least slightly more likely than devout non-Catholics to say that abortion and embryonic stem-cell research -- the two key issues highlighted by those protesting Obama's appearance at Notre Dame -- are morally acceptable. Only on the death penalty are committed Catholics more conservative than regular churchgoers who are not Catholic."

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver spent St. Patrick's Day lunch fielding questions from a group of journalists in Washington; I posted his opening remarks a few days back, in which he explained his position that politicians who support abortion rights should not present themselves for Communion, but also said that he does not deny Communion to those who seek it. Now the full transcript of the Q&A is available thanks to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which hosted the lunch.

There are multiple interesting exchanges.

Sally Quinn, of On Faith, had a lengthy discussion with Chaput about her decision, as a non-Catholic, to take Communion at the Catholic funeral for Tim Russert. Quinn offered several different explanations for her action, saying at one point, "I wanted to do it because I wanted to see what it felt like, since I’m now – as you say, reporters should know about religion. I want to experience a lot of different religions,'' and saying at another point, "I felt very much like I wanted to do this for Tim. He was a very close friend of mine and it was a very emotional time." And then, she said:

"It seems to me, listening to you and trying to understand who is really acceptable, it would seem that nobody should be able to take communion, given your guidelines, because everyone is a sinner. Everyone has scandal in their background; everyone has done something wrong. When I look at the people in a Catholic church, when I see them getting up and they are friends of mine – even at Tim Russert’s funeral – whose consciences I know are not clear, I think why are those people allowed to take communion? I think about the Catholic priests who abused young children who still take communion. I think of those who knew about it and stayed silent and are still taking communion. How do you resolve those issues?"

Here is a portion of Chaput's response:

"The teaching of our church about Holy Communion isn’t that you have to be perfect or that you even have to be good. It’s that you have to be sorry for your sins and you have to believe what the church believes – not just about the Eucharist, whether it’s the body and blood of Christ, but about what we believe as Catholics...

What I think the basic problem is most of the time, Sally, is that people think that they can make up their own meaning for the Eucharist – for me it means that I admire Catholics, and for me it means that I like Tim Russert. But that’s not what the church means, and that’s why we don’t invite people to communion who don’t share our faith. Catholics who don’t believe what the Catholic Church believes shouldn’t receive."

And then, another exchange between the two:

QUINN: Did you believe that the pope made a mistake by giving communion when he was here to Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry and those other Catholics?

CHAPUT: I’ve given communion to people who come up who aren’t Catholics. We kind of joke that every time there’s a funeral, you have a lot of first communions because you don’t embarrass people when they come to communion and chase them away because that’s a terrible pastoral decision. But to tell them beforehand that it’s not appropriate unless you’re a Catholic is appropriate.

So there are all kinds of different issues going on in your question. I don’t think that my guidelines are mine; I don’t think they’re harsh. I think they’re just what the church has always understood. Now people don’t have to agree with us. If I don’t agree, let’s say, with an Evangelical church, I’ll still respect what they ask of me when I’m there. And I think that those of you who aren’t Catholics or who are non-believing Catholics or whatever, if you come to a Catholic church, it wouldn’t be appropriate for you to receive communion out of respect for what the church believes. So this isn’t about me being better than you or you being better than me; it’s simply what our church believes and practices.

Another exchange that caught my attention came between Chaput and Patricia Zapor, of Catholic News Service, who asked the archbishop about the vitriolic nature of so much e-mail about Catholic issues -- something I experience in the comments on this blog.

This is what Chaput said:

"I used to get some hate mail before I was online, but not nearly as much as I did afterwards. I think the way that we have immediate access, which means we immediately speak out of our emotions rather than write a letter, send it the next day, you might change your mind. Instead you write it and you push the button to “show them,” you know, that kind of thing.

So I think our immediate ability to communicate has led to a coarsening discourse for one thing. I gave a talk recently – I think it may have been when I was in Toronto, where I said that the Lord reminds us that we are sheep among wolves, but it’s important for us not to become wolves ourselves because of our experience, and I think that often happens.

Some of the worst emails I get are from Catholic conservatives who think I should excommunicate and refuse communion to Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado and to former-Sen. [and now Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar of Colorado, and why aren’t you doing this? I mean, just awful kind of stuff that they write. Sometimes, I must admit, that when I write back, I’m not as friendly as I should be. But I try not to be mean."

And then, reflecting on the difference between e-mail from liberals and conservatives, he said:

"The left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul."

(Photo, showing Chaput at the lunch with journalists on 3/17/09, courtesy of the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.)

The University of Notre Dame, which courted inevitable controversy when it offered President Obama an honorary degree and a speaking platform, today is announcing the second element of its Commencement Day plan: granting its Laetare Medal, bestowed at the same event, to Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon.

The invitation to Obama, which was accepted by the White House Friday, is controversial because Obama supports abortion rights, and some Catholics believe that politicians who support abortion rights should not be honored or allowed to speak on Catholic campuses. I blogged about the criticism of Notre Dame yesterday; now, as expected, some Catholics are also coming to Notre Dame's defense.

Over at "In All Things,'' the group blog of America magazine, Michael Sean Winters writes:

"Of course, the fringe on the right hates Notre Dame as much as it hates Obama. The University does not stand up to their 'More Catholic Than The Pope' standards...

A visit by the President of the United States is a great honor and all Catholics should revel in it. The colleges and universities our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents built are expressions of the engaged Catholicism that has always marked the life of the Church in this country. We had to build them because we had been forced into a ghetto, but they became the vehicle for entering the mainstream of American culture. President Obama is not coming for a football game or other entertainment. He will be coming to address the graduates of a great Catholic university and, by extension, the members of a great local Church, the Catholic Church in America. We should all be proud and, as (Cardinal) Newman would instruct, we should all be gracious."

And the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a senior fellow at Georgetown's Woodstock Theological Center, e-mails:

"If Cardinal Egan can invite Obama to speak at the Al Smith dinner when he was only a presidential candidate, then there is certainly nothing wrong with Notre Dame having the President speak at a commencement. Other pro-choice speakers at Al Smith dinners included Gore and Tony Blair (a Catholic). What is OK for a cardinal archbishop is certainly OK for a university. Or are bishops exempt from 'Catholics in Political Life'?"

The pairing of Obama with Glendon, although unlikely to satisfy all of the university's critics, is interesting. Glendon, of course, has just finished her service as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, and she is an opponent of abortion rights who is highly regarded by the Catholic hierarchy and by conservative Catholics; the Laetare Medal that she will receive is described by Notre Dame as "the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics." Here is what Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, says in announcing the award:

"Both as a public intellectual and as a diplomat, Mary Ann Glendon has impressively served our Church and our country. She is an articulate and compelling expositor of Catholic social teaching who exemplifies our University’s most cherished values and deserves its highest praise."

(Photo courtesy of Harvard Law School.)

The White House yesterday announced that President Obama will be the commencement speaker at the University of Notre Dame and, right on cue, a controversy has erupted in Catholic circles over whether it is appropriate for the Catholic university to honor a non-Catholic politician who supports abortion rights.

The university's announcement made no mention of the abortion issue, but noted that Obama will be "the ninth U.S. president to be awarded an honorary degree by the University and the sixth to be the Commencement speaker." The university plans to give Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree at the ceremony on May 17.

The question of how Catholic universities should treat politicians who have policy disagreements with the Catholic church has dogged Catholic higher education for years, but has intensified recently with the rise of prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, now including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice-President Joseph Biden. In 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on "Catholics in Political Life" that declared, "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." It's not entirely clear to me whether the policy is meant to apply to non-Catholic politicians like Obama, but there have been controversies over such honors before, most prominently when some at Boston College protested an honorary degree for Condoleezza Rice in 2006 because of her role in the Iraq War. Last year, I took a look at the situation in a story for the Globe and found that Catholic colleges were increasingly shying away from controversial speakers.

Of course, the president of the United States raises the stakes considerably -- is a Catholic college really supposed to refuse a platform to the elected leader of the nation if he has a disagreement, however serious, with Catholic teachings? Today, many on the right are arguing that the answer is yes.

The Cardinal Newman Society immediately set up a protest web site, asking people to "Help Stop the Scandal at Our Lady's University." Greg Kandra, over at The Deacon's Bench, blogs, "This falls under the category of "What Were They Thinking?" Thomas Peters, at the American Papist, predicts that Notre Dame will not back down, but says, "What can and will happen, I hope, is a frank discussion in the public spotlight about a) the mission and identity of Catholic universities and b) a greater awareness of the anti-Catholic policies and legislation that Obama is currently pursuing." And over at Via Media, Amy Welborn suggests Catholic universities stop inviting politicians altogether:

"I think it would be easier on everyone, frankly, if Catholic universities cut the cord with politicians completely. I don't care how prestigious you aim to be, how much you want your graduates to contribute to the fabric of American civic life, even a sitting president cannot help but associate you with a political ideology.

I'm not arguing for the ghetto, at all, but we're not talking noble statesmen here. We're talking politicians who are divisive figures and who, Obama's case, are pursuing policies that directly threaten Catholic institutions."

At a minimum, there is sure to be significant protest of Obama's speech that will draw much more attention, and likely broaden the debate, over the question of who should be allowed to speak, and receive an honor, on Catholic campuses. The Rev. Austin Fleming, pastor of Holy Family parish in Concord, observes on his blog:

"I'm a Domer, a Notre Dame graduate (M.A. Theology/Liturgical Studies, '80), and worked in the ND Office of Campus Ministry for three years. That job found me on the commencement platform in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan received an honorary degree. Reagan's presence on campus sparked some controversy but I'll wager that was nothing compared to what we're going to see when Obama steps under the Notre Dame mantle."

(Photo, by Gerald Herbert/AP, shows President Obama at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus on 3/20/09.)

President Obama today met at the White House with Cardinal Francis E. George, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The two men are both from Chicago, and had met one another several times before Obama's election, but they do not have much of a personal relationship. No word yet on the substance of today's meeting, but the bishops' conference has been critical of Obama's decision to allow embryonic stem cell research and to lift the so-called global gag rule, and has expressed concern about possible changes to what the bishops call "conscience protections for health care workers."

Here is the statement from the White House:

"Today the President met in the Oval Office with His Eminence, Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., Archbishop of Chicago and President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The President and Cardinal George discussed a wide range of issues, including important opportunities for the government and the Catholic Church to continue their long-standing partnership to tackle some of the nation’s most pressing challenges. The President thanked Cardinal George for his leadership and for the contributions of the Catholic Church in America and around the world."

And here is the statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"Cardinal Francis George, OMI, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, met at the White House with President Barack Obama during the afternoon of March 17. The meeting was private. Cardinal George and President Obama discussed the Catholic Church in the United States and its relation to the new Administration. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes. At the conclusion, Cardinal George expressed his gratitude for the meeting and his hopes that it will foster fruitful dialogue for the sake of the common good."

(Photo above, by Scott Olson/Getty, shows Cardinal George celebrating Mass in Chicago on Ash Wednesday, 2/25/09.)

Lots of reaction is coming in today from religious leaders with a variety of opinions about President Obama's action lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The president referred to religious concerns in his remarks, saying, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, who serves as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, criticized the action, saying:

"President Obama’s new executive order on embryonic stem cell research is a sad victory of politics over science and ethics. This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested. It also disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life. Finally, it ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support."

But the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America – an umbrella organization of Orthodox Judaism -- was supportive in a statement:

"The Jewish tradition places great value upon human life and its preservation. The Torah commands us to treat and cure the ill and to defeat disease wherever possible; to do this is to be the Creator's partner in safeguarding the created. The traditional Jewish perspective thus emphasizes that the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life. Stem cell research is consistent with and serves these moral and noble goals. The UOJCA appreciates President Obama's decision to have the federal government support stem cell research, a position the UOJCA has long advocated. We urge the President, and the leadership of the National Institutes of Health, to ensure that robust ethical guidelines and oversight bodies are put in place to ensure this important research is conducted in the most appropriate fashion – balancing science with ethics. We recognize that those who oppose this research and this executive order do so upon the basis of deeply and sincerely held moral beliefs. So too, the UOJCA supports the array of stem cell research options because of our deeply held moral and religious traditions. We commend all those who engage in this important debate with respect and civility for those with whom they disagree; that is the only type of debate this issue deserves."

The American Humanist Association is also supportive. A statement from the group's president, David Niose of Boston:

"This is a victory for scientific integrity and rational public policy, two values threatened when government is unduly influenced by conservative religion. When our laws are shaped by scriptural interpretations and religious opinions that have no basis in science or fact, we all suffer. This issue is excellent evidence of why religion isn’t always a reliable source of morality. Embryonic stem cell research harms nobody and has the potential to lead to revolutionary scientific advances that will benefit all of humanity. What kind of morality would deny hope to millions of real people who are suffering from debilitating diseases and conditions?"

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has put together a helpful on-line overview of the religious issues associated with stem cell research.

UPDATE: Kristin Williams, at Faith in Public Life, e-mails:

"Some groups are obviously opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but a lot of religious groups are in favor of using embryos that would be discarded otherwise to conduct potentially life-saving research. (Not everybody is reporting this well!) In addition to the groups you cited, the Presbyterian Church (USA) supports ESC research, as do the Episcopalians, the United Methodists and other mainline denominations. Also interesting is the Mormon stance—though the LDS church doesn’t have an official position, Sen. Hatch has been an outspoken supporter of ESC research."

And Dan Gilgoff, at God & Country, posts a list of religious guests at the White House ceremony today -- Jews and mainline Protestants, it appears.

Meanwhile, the statements opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and Obama's action, are also streaming in, now from CatholicVote.org, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Women Influencing the Nation, and the Susan B. Anthony List.

And Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention says:

“This is a sad day for the sanctity of all human life in America...Many supporters of the President’s decision have erroneously hailed this as removing politics and ideology from science. In fact, it is an attempt to remove morality from scientific research. History, from the Third Reich and elsewhere, teaches us that such a shift is a steep and slippery slope to a dark, depraved and dangerous destination.”

(Photo above, taken at Stanford University and released today by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine via Reuters, shows a fluorescent microscope image of human embryonic stem cells.)

President Obama's nomination of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head the US Department of Health and Human Services is illuminating a sharp divide in the Catholic world over the primacy of the abortion issue, and how best to achieve abortion reduction. Sebelius is Catholic, and says she believes abortion is wrong, but has repeatedly supported abortion rights while declaring that she has also brought about a reduction in the abortion rate in her state; her own bishop, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, has asked her not to present herself for Communion.

Catholics United immediately leapt to Sebelius's defense, setting up a Catholics for Sebelius web site, and declaring, "The governor has had disagreements over public policy with leaders in her Church. Yet their disagreement has never been over the morality of abortion, but over what prudential policy is best in dealing with abortion in Kansas." Among the 26 signatories to the group's statement of support for Sebelius are many from Massachusetts, including Boston College theology professors Lisa Sowle Cahill, Rev. David Hollenbach and Rev. Thomas J. Massaro; College of the Holy Cross professor David O'Brien; Steve Krueger, the former executive director of Voice of the Faithful; Jerome Maryon, the president of the lay committee on Contemporary Spiritual & Public Concerns at St. Paul's Parish in Cambridge, and Dr. Patrick Whelan, a Boston physician who is president of Catholic Democrats. Faith in Public Life issued a similar statement of support from moderate evangelical leaders and others, declaring, "As Christians dedicated to finding common ground solutions to reduce the number of abortions in America, we welcome President Obama's nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services."

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue called Sebelius "one of the most extreme pro-abortion zealots in the nation"

There's lots of commentary in the blogosphere today. Over at dotCommonweal, David Gibson predicts that the Sebelius nomination "is likely to set off another round of the Catholic Culture Wars." At God & Country, Dan Gilgoff describes Sebelius as "a pro-choice pro-lifer" and reviews what she's said about reconciling her faith and her politics. At Politico, Ben Smith writes that, "the nomination is a bit of a proving grounds for a 'religious left' still trying to establish itself as a player, and one in which it's quite likely to be able to claim victory." And at Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk declares the nomination to be "a poke in the eye of pro-lifers" but says "this seems to me a smart move for the president on his own abortion-reduction front. It reassures the pro-choice community while sending this message to the pro-life one: 'We are committed to reducing the number of abortions but not by doing anything to make it harder for women to get them. Join us in creating better adoption services, sex education, and access to contraception, neonatal care, and daycare. Or don't.'"

(Photo, by Ron Edmonds/AP, shows Obama and Sebelius at the White House today.)

The three local chapters of the American Humanist Association -- the Harvard Humanist chaplaincy, the Greater Boston Humanists and the Greater Worcester Humanists -- claimed a rare victory on Beacon Hill this month when Gov. Deval Patrick agreed to issue a proclamation declaring Feb. 12 to be "Charles Darwin Day.''

But David Niose, the Boston-based president of the national association, said he had to laugh when he got a copy of the official proclamation. At the bottom, after a string of whereases about Darwin's accomplishments and evolutionary theory, the proclamation says, in big letters, "God Save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Here's Niose's report, phoned in after the end of what he described as "an exhausting week for the secular community,'' with Darwin dinners and birthday cakes and speeches:

"It's fairly rare that we talk about humanist groups having political victories, but we had one last week, after the American Humanist Association and the three local chapters asked Deval Patrick to declare Feb. 12 to be Darwin Day. He did it, and he gave us a beautiful declaration, leatherbound, with his signature, and all the fancy language -- chalk one up for the humanist groups. Darwin, of course, is kind of a symbol of the culture wars, because there is a lot of anti-Darwinism -- so we consider this a victory. But the kicker is it says 'God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,' and we thought it was pretty comical that secular humanist groups would be given a Darwin Day proclamation with such a statement -- a friendly reminder of how far we have to go. We're not enraged -- that language is something we're just used to -- but I think it's just something to chuckle over.''

Darwin is a hero of atheists, but lots of religious folks are interested too; the Vatican is planning next month to hold a conference on evolution.

Pope Benedict XVI is planning to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Vatican on Wednesday. The meeting has been the subject of considerable chatter in the conservative Catholic corner of the blogosphere for days, anticipating Pelosi's time in Rome as head of a congressional delegation to Italy. Pelosi, of course, is a practicing Catholic and mother of five (and grandmother of seven), but also is a supporter of abortion rights, and that combination has infuriated some conservatives who argue that support for abortion rights should disqualify Catholic politicians from receiving Communion and from being honored by Catholic universities. (Pelosi conspicuously received Communion at the papal Mass in Washington last year; she has in the past been honored by Catholic universities, but not recently.)

The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (HLI), tells LifeSiteNews.com that the pope should take the opportunity to excommunicate the speaker:

"It is our hope that the Holy Father will not grant the floundering Speaker of the House what she surely wants and expects, a quick and valuable photo-op, but will rather give her a stern lecture on contraception and abortion and let her know that her eternal salvation is in danger. Further, this would be the perfect opportunity to formally excommunicate the Speaker, as she has done everything a public official possibly can to declare her lack of communion with the Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church on every conceivable issue."

But The Anchoress blogs:

"Of course Benedict should meet with Mrs. Pelosi. And of course that meeting will seem like a “victory” for dissenting Catholics who will consider that she has lorded something over on the humble Benedict. Looking at things with earthbound eyes, it will be all they see, and it will be an illusion. What we will not see, and will not be able to measure, will be the impact of this meeting - long range - on Mrs. Pelosi. Now, it’s possible that the meeting will effect no change in her. If she is resolutely “closed” then it will have little impact; recall that when Jesus was in his hometown where belief was minimal, he did not perform many miracles because he had no openings to do so. But if Mrs. Pelosi has any openness at all, then the Holy Spirit will do what He will and eventually - perhaps not for years, but eventually - we will see the fruits of that openness."

Deal Hudson takes the pragmatic view, blogging:

"The Holy Father is a head of state and must, as a matter of course, meet with political leaders from every nation, regardless of their positions on issues important to the Church. It's also a good idea for Benedict XVI to meet with misguided souls like Pelosi, because you can never underestimate the impact of being in his presence on someone who is running from the truth as fast as she/he can."

But, Hudson also writes:

"Benedict XVI should use the opportunity of the visit to make a strong public statement about the attack on unborn life being waged by the new Congress and the new administration. Pelosi's ordinary, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco, should issue a public statement strongly critical of Pelosi as a Catholic politician. He should include a statement that if she presents herself for communion he will deny it to her."

What do you think? Is the pope right to meet with Pelosi? Is she right to meet with him? And what should they say to one another? (Remember, if you want anyone else to see your comment, no obscenities and no hate speech.)

(Photo, by Alessia Pierdomenico of Reuters, shows Pelosi visiting a chestnut vendor in the Piazza di Spagna in Rome earlier today.)

President Obama, as expected, today named Joshua DuBois to head the new White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. DuBois, 26, had been the Obama campaign's director of religious affairs.

I wrote a profile of DuBois (shown above, with Obama) last summer that you can read here. While a student at Boston University (he graduated cum laude in 2003 with a bachelor's degree in political science), DuBois also served as an associate pastor at Calvary Praise & Worship Center, a tiny evangelical congregation in Cambridge affiliated with the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God, a small, predominantly African-American denomination.

Obama today also named members of a new advisory council for the office. Here's the statement from the White House:

"President Barack Obama today signed an executive order establishing the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will work on behalf of Americans committed to improving their communities, no matter their religious or political beliefs.

FULL ENTRY

In his remarks today at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama retold the story of his journey to Christianity:

"I believe this good is possible because my faith teaches me that all is possible, but I also believe because of what I have seen and what I have lived.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even as she was the kindest, most spiritual person I’ve ever known. She was the one who taught me as a child to love, and to understand, and to do unto others as I would want done.

I didn’t become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck – no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose – His purpose."

Here's the text and video of Obama's speech:

FULL ENTRY

A new poll by Gallup finds that of the many actions President Obama took during his first days in office, the least popular is his decision to lift a ban on the use of federal funds for organizations that provide information about abortion overseas. According to Gallup, 58 percent of the public disapproves of the step to revoke the so-called Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule, while 35 percent approve. By contrast, a majority of the public supports most of the other early moves by Obama. From Gallup:

"Obama's decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it. The abortion and Guantanamo Bay prison decisions are especially unpopular among Republicans; only 8% approve of the former and 11% of the latter. But these are also the least popular decisions among independents and Democrats as well, though a majority of Democrats still approve of both."

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston recently criticized Obama over this step, and the poll is already attracting a lot of attention in the anti-abortion movement, which is closely associated with the Catholic church and other religious conservatives.

Deirdre McQuade, assistant director for policy and communications for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said in a statement: "Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has said that the bishops find the recent decision by President Barack Obama to reverse the Mexico City Policy “very disappointing.“ Most Americans seem to agree...An administration that wants to reduce abortions should not divert U.S. funds to groups that perform and promote abortion. Our country faces serious national challenges at this time, requiring Americans to unite for the common good of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. This is no time to divide our nation with policies that offend the pro-life values of most Americans."

Over at American Papist, Thomas Peters blogs, "This poll supports the point I and others have made: Obama's position on life issues - particularly abortion - is not in line with the majority of Americans, but rather represents an extreme position on the issue. He is even, I think it can be argued, farther from the center than people who would consider themselves 'pro-life'."

And Catholic League president Bill Donohue said, "The people have spoken. They generally like what Obama is doing so far, but they draw the line on funding abortion. It would behoove him to pay more attention to the American people on this subject and less time listening to the extremists at Planned Parenthood and NARAL."

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley (right) of Boston, who has made no secret of his concern about President Obama's support for abortion rights, in his most recent blog posting criticizes the president's decision to revoke the so-called Mexico City Policy, which prohibited federally funded nongovernmental organizations from using those funds to pay for abortions. Here's what O'Malley wrote:

"As we feared, the President has chosen to reverse the Mexico City policy which prohibited U.S. government money from being used in programs which provide or promote abortions overseas. We can only speculate on what the implications of that decision are going to be.

When we see the numbers of abortions being performed in the developing world — many of which are directed at girls in the womb — it is very disturbing to think that our country is going to be promoting this kind of assault on human life and dignity throughout the world.

Abortion is a great evil and anytime restrictions to abortion are lifted it is a tragedy. As I said previously, it is very encouraging to see so many young people participating in the March for Life and in other events throughout the year. We must continue to educate new generations about the gift of life."

O'Malley's comments are in keeping with those of other Catholic bishops, and reflect the church's staunch opposition to abortion. Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement criticizing the decision Jan. 23.

(Photo, by Barry Chin of the Globe staff, shows O'Malley in Quincy on Jan. 13, 2009.)

Today is the second anniversary of the death of former U.S. Rep. Robert F. Drinan, a Massachusetts Democrat who was the only Jesuit priest ever to serve in Congress. Drinan was always concerned about the contents of his FBI file, because he thought the FBI inappropriately kept tabs on him because of his liberal political views. The Globe recently obtained Drinan's FBI file through a Freedom of Information Act request, and I have a story about the content's in today's paper. An excerpt:

The file is unlikely to reshape history's view of the only Jesuit priest to serve in Congress, but it provides a backstage look at the dispute between the congressman and the agency and a reminder of how much the FBI changed over the second half of the 20th century.

In the 1970s and before, the FBI clearly viewed the congressman as potential trouble. At one point, when Drinan was quoted by a news service denouncing Attorney General John N. Mitchell as "the most dangerous attorney general that we have ever had," an FBI official scribbled on a document, "This fellow Drinan is like McGovern + Anderson - anything to get publicity."

The document does not make clear who McGovern and Anderson are, but the references seem likely to be to Senator George S. McGovern and either US Representative John B. Anderson or Jack Anderson, a syndicated newspaper columnist.

But by 1994, when the FBI was asked to do a background check on Drinan for a possible federal appointment, the tone was completely different. The file is packed with testimonials from Drinan's colleagues describing him in highly laudatory terms.

(Photo, by Frank C. Curtian of AP, shows Father Drinan greeting Vietnam veterans in Concord in 1971.)

President Obama today issued a statement on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, reiterating his support for abortion rights, but also saying he is interested in abortion reduction. The statement:

"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services. On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere."

(Photo, by Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP, shows Obama visiting the White House press room today.)

Multiple religious groups are celebrating President Obama's signing today of an executive order barring torture.

Here's the statement from Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on International Justice and Peace.

“Based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, our Conference of Bishops welcomes the executive order. Together with other religious leaders, we had pressed for this step to protect human dignity and help restore the moral and legal standing of the United States in the world. A ban on torture says much about us – who we are, what we believe about human life and dignity, and how we act as a nation.”

Faith in Public Life compiled statements celebrating the ban from Evangelicals for Human Rights, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Rabbis for Human Rights North America, and Faithful America. Here's the statement from Faith in Public Life:

"For three years, religious leaders and organizations from across the faith and ideological spectrum have worked tirelessly to end America’s torture of detainees in its custody. Today, the faith community applauds President Obama’s executive orders banning torture, closing the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and secret locations, ensuring Red Cross access to all detainees, and ending extraordinary rendition. Together, we call for continuing diligence in the effort to ensure the US government never tortures again."

UPDATE: The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism has issued a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein also praising the executive order. An excerpt:

"Ending the use of interrogation methods that amount to torture will help our actions once again reflect the ideals on which our nation was founded. We must remain equally committed to providing law enforcement with the tools necessary to combat terrorism at home and abroad and to preserve the principles and ideals that the terrorists want to destroy."

(Photo by Larry Downing of Reuters.)

Rick Warren's invocation at this morning's inauguration was inclusive at first, and explicitly Christian in the end, with the English version of the Jewish Sh'ma at the start and, perhaps in an allusion to the controversy over his selection, a call to reconciliation, saying, "when we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us." He recited the name of Jesus in Hebrew, Arabic and Spanish, as well as in English.

Here's a transcript, followed by the video:

Let us pray.

Almighty God -- our Father. Everything we see, and everything we can’t see, exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story. The Scripture tells us, ‘Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.’ And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time, we celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King, and a great cloud of witnesses, are shouting in heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice-President Biden, the cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom, and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes -- even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve, and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy, and a more prosperous nation, and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day, all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president, and his wife Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life -- Yeshua, Isa, Jesús, Jesus -- who taught us to pray:

Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.

Amen.

Also, the Globe's Matthew Gilbert is reporting that HBO will air Bishop Gene Robinson's invocation, delivered Sunday at a pre-inaugural event but not included in the original telecast.

UPDATE: Some local reaction to Warren's invocation.

Rabbi Howard A. Berman, of Boston Jewish Spirit, e-mailed the following note to his congregation:

With the joy and excitement of the Inauguration moment now over, we can be grateful that the spirit of unity and inclusion that our new President stands for, seems to have touched even the heart of Pastor Warren. Despite our worst fears, his invocation was, in fact, remarkably appropriate, and as broad and embracing as it could have possibly been, given his evangelical beliefs. He referred to "Scripture", rather than using the more specific term, "Bible", and quoted the words of the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One" as well as the opening phrase of the Koran, "O God who is merciful and compassionate..." He called for respect for all people, in the midst of disagreements. And most significantly, instead of concluding with the traditional phrase, "We ask this in Jesus' name...", he instead said "I ask this in the name of Jesus", which was personal and fitting, without excluding or disenfranchising those who do not pray in that manner. His further attempt at pluralism, in also using the Hebrew and Arabic versions of Jesus (Yeshua and Issa) certainly reflects his fundamental Christian belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior of all people - including Jews and Muslims... but could also have simply been intended to express a broader view of his own faith. The fact remains that much of Rick Warren's preaching and positions are restrictive and exclusionary, and will continue to be demeaning and offensive to GLBT people, women, and many others - including many other Christians. However, in this instance, his clear attempts at reconciliation can offer us hope that in this new era, some of the divisions in American life will indeed be healed, with greater efforts at dialogue and sensitivity on all sides of the religious and political spectrum.

And Dave Schmelzer, the senior pastor at Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Greater Boston, sent me this observation:

The prayer seemed fair enough to me. He clearly was trying to ground it in the Shema, which links Jews, Christians and Muslims. The substance of his prayer seemed non-controversial and I'd presume most Americans of good will wouldn't be offended, presuming there's a God, if God answered those prayers. And then his decision to close the prayer "in Jesus' name" and with the Lord's Prayer...granted, there has been controversy about whether that's an appropriately inclusive thing to do in a pluralistic nation. But given that he is an evangelical pastor, it struck me that he did his best to be thoughtful even in that, with his translation of Jesus' name into multiple languages--not least "Isa," Jesus' name in the Qur'an. So, my take, could anyone have wanted him to do better than that?

(Photo by Jason Reed of Reuters.)

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been deeply concerned about Barack Obama's support for abortion rights, today released a letter from the conference president, Cardinal Francis E. George (right) of Chicago, to the president-elect, urging him not to overturn a series of regulations that, according to the bishops, "protect conscience rights of health care workers, prevent foreign aid to organizations promoting abortion, and ban funding of stem cell research that encourages destruction of human embryos."

Here is the text of the letter:

"Dear Mr. President-elect: I recently wrote to assure you of the prayers of the Catholic bishops of the United States for your service to our nation, and to outline issues of special concern to us as we seek to work with your Administration and the new Congress to serve the common good. I am writing today on a matter that could introduce significant negative and divisive factors into our national life, at a time when we need to come together to address the serious challenges facing our people. I expect that some want you to take executive action soon to reverse current policies against government-sponsored destruction of unborn human life. I urge you to consider that this could be a terrible mistake -- morally, politically, and in terms of advancing the solidarity and well-being of our nation’s people. FULL ENTRY

Lots of ink is being spilled over Rick Warren these days, including my story about him in today's Globe. Now comes Cambridge illustrator Louisa Bertman (full disclosure: she's my second cousin!) who has begun a series of portraits inspired by Facebook's quirky news feeds, and sends along this image of the country's new most favorite/least favorite evangelical, who tomorrow will give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration:

In the invocation offered by Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire at today's inaugural welcoming ceremony, the openly gay bishop called on God to "bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people." Robinson was tapped to give the invocation today after an uproar over President-elect Barack Obama's invitation to evangelical pastor Rick Warren, an opponent of same-sex marriage, to give the invocation during the inauguration Tuesday.

Here is the full text of the prayer, from Robinson's diocesan web site:

"A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama
By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

FULL ENTRY

There's what strikes me as a preposterous conversation going on in the religion blogosphere about whether Barack Obama is somehow excluding Catholics from the inauguration, since thus far, in the sea of clergy names attached to seemingly every event but the balls, there are no Catholic clergy. That didn't seem plausible to me, given that Catholics make up nearly a quarter of the country, so I started calling around, and I'm told that Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl (right) is speaking at the National Prayer Service Wednesday, and there is expected to be a Catholic priest at the private inauguration day worship service at St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington.

UPDATE: The Presidential Inauguration Committee has now announced the full slate of participants in the National Prayer Service. Among them is the Rev. Samuel Lloyd III, an Episcopal priest who is the former rector of Trinity Church in Boston, and now the dean of National Cathedral in Washington. Here's the full list of partipants:

Welcome: Reverend Samuel T. Lloyd III, Dean of the Washington National Cathedral
Invocation: Reverend John Bryon Chane, Episcopal Bishop of Washington.
Opening Prayer: Reverend Otis Moss Jr., Senior Pastor Emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio
Prayer for civil leaders: Reverend Andy Stanley, Senior Pastor, North Point Community Church, Alpharetta, Georgia.
Scripture readings: Dr. Cynthia Hale, Senior Pastor, Ray of Hope Christian Church, Atlanta, Georgia as well as Archbishop Demetrios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, New York City, and the Most Reverend Francisco Gonzalez, S.F., Auxiliary Bishop of Washington.
Psalm: Rabbi David Saperstein, Executive Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, D.C.
Responsive prayers:
--Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President, Islamic Society of North America, Hartford, CT
--Rev. Suzan Johnson-Cook, Senior Pastor, Bronx Christian Fellowship, New York City
--Rabbi Jerome Epstein, Director, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, New York City
--Rev. Carol Wade of the Washington National Cathedral
--Dr. Uma Mysorekar, President, Hindu Temple Society of North America, New York City
--Rev. Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners, Washington, D.C.
-- Rabbi Haskal Lookstein, Congregation Kehilath Jeshurunm, New York City
--Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, Senior Pastor, Windsor Village United Methodist Church, Houston, TX
Concluding prayer: Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington
Closing prayer: Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori, Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church USA
Benediction: Reverend Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America

Sermon: Sharon E. Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)

Barack Obama, who while campaigning for president attributed his opposition to same-sex marriage to his deeply held religious beliefs, in 1996 told a gay newspaper in Chicago that he supported same-sex marriage.

This is from a story in the Windy City Times, referring to questionnaires Obama filled out for Outlines, a Chicago newspaper that no longer exists, and IMPACT, a gay rights organization, when he was a candidate for state Senate:

"Obama's answer to the 1996 Outlines question was very clear: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” There was no use of “civil unions,” no compromise whatsoever. The IMPACT marriage question was a bit less direct. It asked if Obama would support a Marriage Resolution being considered at the time, which read in part “Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who [ choose ] to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.” Obama responded: “I would support such a resolution.”

But by 2004, Obama had changed his tune, telling a radio interviewer, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Gay rights did not play a prominent role during the campaign, but the issue has gained prominence since California voters overturned same-sex marriage in that state on Election Day. Obama drew criticism for choosing Rick Warren, an evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at the inauguration; he then chose V. Gene Robinson, an Episcopal bishop who is gay and who supports same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at a pre-inaugural event Sunday.

H/T: The Brody File.

(The new office portrait of President-elect Barack Obama, from Pete Souza/Obama Transition Office, via AP.)

Times & Seasons, one of the major Mormon blogs, has named former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Mormon of the Year for 2008. Not a big surprise, given his candidacy for the presidency. In fact, a colleague of mine asked who the other contenders might be, and all I could think of were Stephenie Meyer (the author of the "Twilight" series) and David Archuleta (the "American Idol" runner-up). It turns out that they, plus Romney, were three of the five candidates; the other two were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and JetBlue founder David Neeleman. Here's the explanation from Times & Seasons:

"During 2008 Romney concluded the most credible presidential campaign of any Mormon to date and dominated the U.S. national news early in the year like no single Mormon has in recent memory. He garnered a great deal of both praise and criticism, gaining him significant endorsements as well as important detractors. Remarkably, his supporters included many Evangelical Christians, which helped break down the unfortunate views of some Evangelicals toward Mormons. Also on the international scene, numerous press articles mentioned Romney’s membership in the Mormon Church, thus contributing to the image of the Church abroad.

Romney was not merely a very visible Mormon, however; his Mormonism was a major influence on the course of his campaign, in both positive and negative ways. Many called for Romney to distance himself from his religion, as JFK had done many years earlier. Instead, Romney responded by articulating the values he shares with many other Americans, which his faith supports, and by articulating the importance of all faiths in the life of the nation. Romney’s public image was inextricably tied to his Mormon beliefs, and this faith, which drove a myriad of storylines, appeared to contribute to the unease with him as a candidate, helping to derail his presidential hopes."

(Photo, by Alex Wong/Getty, shows Romney during a taping of "Meet the Press" at the NBC studios in Washington on 12/14/08.)

The 111th Congress, sworn in last week, features 50 members (out of 535) who are Jesuit-educated, according to the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Georgetown has by far the most alumni at the Capitol -- 18 -- but local favorites Boston College and the College of the Holy Cross have their share, with six and four graduates in Congress, respectively.

The BC alumni are all Democrats, including, from Massachusetts, Senator John F. Kerry (JD 1976), Representative Michael Capuano (JD 1977), Representative William D. Delahunt (JD 1967) and Representative Edward J. Markey (BA 1968; JD 1972). The others are Representative Paul W. Hodes of New Hampshire (JD 1978) and Representative Robert C. Scott of Virginia (JD 1973). (UPDATE: An alert reader reminds me that Representative Stephen F. Lynch, also a Massachusetts Democrat, received a law degree from BC (in 1991). I have no idea why he's not on the AJCU list, but that increases BC's number to 7, and the overall number of Jesuit college and university grads in Congress to 51.)

The Holy Cross alumni, also all Democrats, are Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania (BA 1982), Representative Timothy H. Bishop of New York (BA 1972), Representative James P. Moran of Virginia (BA 1967) and Representative Peter Welch of Vermont (BA 1969).

In another analysis of the makeup of Congress, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life looked at the religious makeup of the House and Senate. A few highlights from the report:

• "Members of Congress are much more likely than the public overall to say they are affiliated with a particular religion."
• The Congress is mostly Protestant (54.7%), mirroring the nation, but the Protestants are from multiple denominations; Baptists are underrepresented, while Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians are overrepresented when compared to their presence in the national population.
• "Catholics are the single largest religious group in the 111th Congress. Catholics, who account for nearly one-quarter of the U.S. adult population, make up about 30% of Congress."
• "Jews, who account for just 1.7% of the U.S. adult population, make up 8.4% of Congress, including just over 13% of the Senate."
• There are two Muslims and two Buddhists in Congress; both groups are slightly underrepresented, as are Hindus (there are no Hindu members of Congress).

(Photo above, courtesy of Boston College Public Affairs, shows the spire of Gasson Hall at Boston College.)

A multifaith group of religious leaders from Boston, including Jews as well as Muslims and Christians, today is issuing a joint statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

"We call upon Hamas immediately to end all rocket attacks on Israel, and upon Israel immediately to end its military campaign in Gaza,'' the statement says.

The Jewish signatories include several rabbis as well as the former presidents of Hebrew College and the Jewish Community Relations Council, but are predominantly drawn from the liberal wing of the Jewish community, and do not include the current heads of the major umbrella Jewish community organizations, who have generally not said anything that could be perceived as critical of Israel.

The most prominent signatories are the Christian leaders, also predominantly associated with liberal causes, who include the top local officials of the Episcopal Church, the Massachusetts Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church, as well as the president of Andover Newton Theological School. The top local official of the Unitarian Universalist Association also signed. There are several Catholic signers, but no members of that church's hierarchy.

The Muslim leaders include several local imams and the leadership of the Muslim American Society of Boston.

Here is the full text of the letter plus the signatories:

"AN INTERFAITH DECLARATION FOR PEACE

We, members and leaders of the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities in Greater Boston - all having deep and symbolic ties to the land and peoples of the Middle East - are anguished by the events unfolding in Israel and Gaza. Recognizing the legitimate needs of all peoples, including all those living in the Middle East, for dignity, peace, safety and security –- regardless of religion, race, or national origin -- we issue this joint statement with the hope and belief that our interfaith voices will be heard clearly, above the din of war.

As guiding principles,

•We acknowledge the long, complex, and painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
•We acknowledge the wide range of deeply-held beliefs, and intensely-felt narratives on all sides
•We acknowledge that all sides are capable of assigning blame to others, and asserting justification for their cause
•We observe that violence by any side begets more violence, hatred, and retaliation
•We deplore any invocation of religion as a justification for violence against others, or the deprivation of the rights of others
•We decry any use of inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes the other and is intended, or is likely, to promote hatred and disrespect
•We believe the conflict can be resolved only through a political and diplomatic solution and not a military one.

In the face of many competing narratives, we recognize that the overriding common need of the peoples of the region is the prompt implementation of a just and lasting peace. Toward that end, and particularly in response to the current hostilities,

•We call upon the United States and the international community immediately to intercede to help reestablish a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, toward the goal of a permanent cessation of hostilities
•We call upon Hamas immediately to end all rocket attacks on Israel, and upon Israel immediately to end its military campaign in Gaza
•We call for an immediate end to all strikes on civilian centers and citizens, both Israeli and Palestinian
•We call for lifting of the blockade on Gaza as to all non-military goods, for an immediate and significant increase in humanitarian aid to address the needs of the people of Gaza, and for all parties involved to join in taking responsibility to address those human needs
•We call on all parties involved in the conflict to work sincerely and vigorously toward a just and lasting peace that addresses and promotes the national aspirations of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples
•We call on President-elect Obama to make clear that as President he will urgently assert US leadership to achieve a comprehensive diplomatic resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts

Through this joint statement we affirm our commitment to engage with one another, even, and especially, during times of great stress. We also affirm our common humanity and our common belief – as Jews, Muslims and Christians - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must cease, that there is no military or violent solution, that all human life is valued, and that all parties must cooperate to make the peace – a just and lasting peace desperately needed and deserved by all the peoples of the region."

Signed:

FULL ENTRY

Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the only openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, has been asked to give the invocation at the first official inaugural activity, a welcome event with the president-elect on Sunday afternoon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Robinson had been critical of president-elect Barack Obama for asking Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who encouraged voters to overturn same-sex marriage in California, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration.

Episcopal Cafe has an e-mail from Robinson:

"I am writing to tell you that President-Elect Obama and the Inaugural Committee have invited me to give the invocation at the opening event of the Inaugural Week activities, “We are One,” to be held at the Lincoln Memorial, Sunday, January 18, at 2:00 pm. It will be an enormous honor to offer prayers for the country and the new president, standing on the holy ground where the “I have a dream speech” was delivered by Dr. King, surrounded by the inspiring and reconciling words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It is also an indication of the new president’s commitment to being the President of ALL the people. I am humbled and overjoyed at this invitation, and it will be my great honor to be there representing the Episcopal Church, the people of New Hampshire, and all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community."

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, praised the choice:

“Bishop Robinson models what prayer should be—spiritual reflection put into action for justice,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “It is encouraging that the president-elect has chosen this spiritual hero for all Americans to lead the nation in prayer at the Lincoln Memorial inaugural concert.”

Although there has been some debate about whether Warren should use the name of Jesus in his inauguration day prayer, Robinson made it clear, in an interview with the Concord Monitor, that he will offer a non-sectarian prayer at the Sunday event. He said he will not use the Bible as his text, saying:

"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."

For those looking for more clues as to what Robinson might say, the bishop has just posted on his diocesan web site a prayer for the inauguration that he wrote for GQ magazine (this is not the prayer he will deliver Sunday):

"As we enter a new and exciting chapter in the story of this nation, people of faith are praying to the God of their own understanding – for the nation and for our new president. We are blessed as a nation – not because we are favored by God over any other nation, but because the God of every tradition wants the best for ALL of God’s children. And we ask God’s blessing on Barack Obama, who faces a nearly impossible task at an excruciatingly difficult time, bringing to that challenge his skills, his vision and his humanity. Even if you don’t believe in God, pray with me these prayers.

A Prayer for the Nation

O God of all creation, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, Afghan girls are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, easily-cured waterborne diseases, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world, and the courage to take our rightful (not always primary) place in the community of nations.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing our begrudging tolerance with a genuine respect and (dare I say it?) warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

Bless us with a sense of thanksgiving and appreciation – for those who give themselves for public service over private gain, and give us the strength to make the sacrifices that will be needed in playing our part in facing the challenges of these days. AMEN.

A Prayer for Barack Obama

O God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership, FDR’s courageous boldness and vision, and JFK’s ability to enlist the best efforts of our people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain for these times, not a fierce warrior who knee-jerk reacts to every real or perceived threat.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, remembering his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on his experience of the pain and rejection of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him patience and perseverance – not to give in to our whining (we love to do it when we don’t get our way), but rather to keep calling us to our better selves.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he’s president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking WAY too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace. AMEN."

Also this weekend, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced that the Rev. Sharon E. Watkins, general minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), will give the sermon at the National Prayer Service on Wednesday, January 21st, the day after the inauguration.

The selections of Robinson and Watkins, effectively diversifying a slate of inaugural preachers that already included Warren and the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights leader who is giving the benediction at the inauguration, drew praise from Integrity USA, an organization that advocates for gay rights within the Episcopal Church:

"Bishop Robinson’s selection by the President-elect to pray God’s blessings on the opening event of the Inaugural week is good news not only for gay and lesbian Americans but for all who share the audacious hope of a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal," said Integrity President Susan Russell. "It also gives us hope that the age of an ‘America’s Pastor’ is behind us and that we enter a new era where diverse voices of faith speak from the particularity of their own experience of God’s grace, love and power. While there are many miles to go before we are done with racism, sexism and homophobia in this country, we look forward to Barack Obama’s inauguration, to Sharon Watkins’ sermon and to Gene Robinson’s prayers as signs of great progress and profound hope."

(Photo by Erik Jacobs for the Boston Globe.)

It’s that time of year again – list time. Actually, it’s way past list time. The Religion Newswriters Association issued their list of the top ten religion stories of the year weeks ago – of course, as a result, they missed the Madoff scandal, the Rick Warren/invocation controversy, and the Gaza assault. Revealer issued lists of the year's best religion writing and the year's best religion books and movies. Altmuslim offered a list of the top ten good news stories of the year. And Religion Dispatches has a list of the top ten year-end religion news lists, including those from Time, Christianity Today, and the Onion.

For this first new year of this new blog, I’m going to offer ten reflections about religion news and the year gone by, with a few anticipatory remarks thrown in as well. This is just a sampling; feel free to suggest other topics in the comments field.

1. The year that is ending was marked, in particular, by the multiple battles for the hearts and minds of religious Americans in the presidential campaign. There was often less there than met the eye – evangelicals continued to vote in large numbers for the Republican Party, despite vigorous efforts to lure them away by Democrats, and Jews continued to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, despite an unending whispering campaign on the Internet attempting to associate Obama with Islam and critics of Israel. Mitt Romney’s much-anticipated speech on faith and public life was probably not a turning point in American political thinking. Social issues played only a minor role in a campaign dominated first by Iraq and then by the economy. And, to the extent that religion was part of the political story, it was almost always as something to criticize or mock – the preaching of Wright, Hagee and Pfleger, the beliefs and practices of Palin and Romney, the middle name of Obama, the politics of Warren.

2. As the new year begins, it appears that the biggest story for all religions is likely to be the economy, which will increase demand on religious organizations for solace and assistance at the same time that it depletes their endowments and threatens their fundraising.

3. In the Catholic Church, the biggest news of 2008 was the successful visit to the United States of Pope Benedict XVI, who benefitted enormously from low expectations and won high marks for his decision to meet in Washington with five Bostonians who had been sexually abused by priests. That meeting was put together by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, who passed (without celebration) five eventful years as archbishop of Boston, seemingly settling into his role after surviving multiple controversies, moving the church’s longtime headquarters from Brighton to Braintree, completing a reshaping of his administrative team, improving the archdiocese’s grim financial picture and rescuing St. John’s Seminary from the brink of death. But O’Malley still faces enormous challenges; the diocese still spends more each year than it raises; five closed parishes remain occupied (for more than four years now!) by protesters; and the diocese’s accounts for clergy pensions and benefits are seriously underfunded. And the church remains, particularly in Massachusetts, at odds with the political culture, particularly over abortion and gay rights. So in 2009, I'll be watching how O’Malley handles the vigils and the pension funds; what he does to address the increasing priest shortage, most likely by asking more priests to oversee multiple parishes like the circuit riders of old; and how he manages critiquing a presidential administration supported by the vast majority of his parishioners. For the pope, a highlight of 2009 is expected to be a May visit to Israel, but that trip could be postponed or cancelled if the violence there continues.

4. Mainline Protestant denominations continued to be roiled by debates over homosexuality, and continued to grapple with declining participation and aging congregations. The split in the global Anglican Communion since the election of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire began to formalize in 2008, as conservatives announced that they were establishing a separate North American province that would compete with the existing Episcopal Church in the U.S. and Canada. African American Protestant churches reflected on the state of black liberation theology after the incendiary preaching by Jeremiah Wright (a pastor in the mainline United Church of Christ) called attention to the risks of rhetoric in the age of Youtube.

5. The evangelical Protestant world was in the spotlight throughout the election, as the Democratic Party attempted, with little measurable success, to break the strong relationship between evangelicalism and Republicanism. But evangelical politics are clearly in flux – polls show younger evangelicals interested in a broader array of issues than their elders. And the tension was on display in awkward ways; the National Association of Evangelicals ousted a longtime long official, Rich Cizik, whose open attitude toward global warming and gay relationships caused some on the right to question his orthodoxy. And the flap over Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation reminded both evangelicals and Democrats that engagement between the two will be fraught with complexity.

6. For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2008 brought an end to the presidential campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose candidacy went further than that of any of the Mormons who have previously sought the nation’s highest office, but also called attention to a deep streak of anti-Mormonism in American culture, particularly among evangelical Protestants. The year also saw Mormons in the midst of a controversy over Proposition 8, the measure that would overturn same-sex marriage in California. Mormons, acting at their church’s urging, gave millions to the campaign, and the church was targeted by protesters after the measure passed. Locally, Mormons continued their institutional growth in eastern Massachusetts; eight years after building a huge temple on Belmont Hill, the LDS church this year broke ground for a new stake center in East Cambridge and announced plans to build a new chapel (being contested by neighbors) in Brookline.

7. For Jews, much of the year’s biggest news was concentrated at the end of the year, as multiple Jewish foundations and individuals lost millions of dollars in the alleged Ponzi scheme overseen by one of the community’s own; an investor named Bernard L. Madoff. And the Israeli assault on Gaza, in response to Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, brought renewed attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to significant concern about Israel’s conduct by a variety of governments and groups. There was also the immigration raid on the kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, which has intensified a growing discussion about what relationship, if any, there should be between ethics and kashrut. Locally, the Combined Jewish Philanthropies offered a new plan for the Jewish community, which, as it turns out, called for intensified defense of Israel; the Jewish community locally also decided to close its community center on the South Shore. In 2009, watch for a potential consolidation of Jewish nonprofits as the economy and the Madoff scandal take their toll, and also keep an eye on how the Jewish community manages interfaith relations given the increasing criticism of Israel from other faith groups.

8. For Muslims, the year brought ongoing tension over the place of Islam in the West, as American Muslims continued to make incremental political gains, but were largely ignored by an Obama campaign wary of associating with an unpopular group. The use of terror by some Muslims – most recently the attacks in Mumbai – continues to pose a challenge to those who proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace. The Middle East crisis also looms large for American Muslims, who are attempting to persuade American policymakers to criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza. Many Muslims seized as a sign of hope Colin Powell’s denunciation, on Meet the Press, of the idea that there is something wrong with being a Muslim. And in Boston, 2008 brought the soft opening of the much-debated and long-delayed new Islamic Cultural Center in Roxbury, which is expected to fully open in 2009.

9. There were several notable deaths in the world of religion in 2008. Cardinal Avery Dulles, the scion of a famous, and Protestant, American family, who came to Catholicism by the banks of the Charles River, and who became the only American theologian ever named a cardinal by Rome, died in December at 90. Gordon Hinckley, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, revered by Mormons as prophet, seer and revelator, and a descendant of the last governor of Plymouth Colony, died in January at 97. Russian Orthodox patriarch Alexy II died in December at 79; Warith Deen Mohammed, the African-American Muslim leader, died in September at 74.

10. The business of religion journalism, like the rest of the journalism business, is, to put it mildly, in flux. The amount of space and resources committed to religion journalism by the mainstream media continued to dwindle in 2008, and several veteran religion writers around the country were laid off or bought out.

At the Globe, the powers-that-be retired the paper’s longtime religion column, Spiritual Life, as part of a budget-cutting effort, and launched this blog, Articles of Faith, in an effort to better engage with that segment of our growing on-line audience that is interested in religion. The blog has grown rapidly – thanks to Sarah Palin, the abortion issue, and a variety of other controversies, we had nearly 200,000 page views in November. I am grateful to all of you (well, most of you) who visited, bookmarked the site, subscribed to the RSS feed, and took the time to post comments or send notes as I experiment with this forum, trying to figure out what features and what types of posts are most useful, how best to balance the kinds of hot-button items that generate clicks with posts about news and culture that can be traffic-deadening, and also how best to balance blogging with reporting and writing stories.

This will almost certainly be my last blog post of the year; I’ve just arrived in California for a vacation, and, if the news and my own temperament allow me to tear myself away from the keyboard, Articles of Faith will be on hiatus for a bit. But please feel free to post your own thoughts about trends in the world of religion as comments on this blog, or shoot me an e-mail with suggestions for religion stories you think the Globe should pursue in 2009.

And, to one and all, Happy New Year.

(Photo, by Lai Seng Sin/AP, shows a New Year's celebration today in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.)

Rick Warren (right), the evangelical preacher chosen by Barack Obama to deliver the inaugural invocation, has posted a three-part video to his church's website responding to the furor that has erupted over his selection.

In the video, Warren criticizes the media, and, in particular, bloggers, for fueling the controversy. And he says the criticism of him in the wake of his selection has been characterized by "a lot of hate speech" and by "Christophobia -- people who are afraid of any Christian.''

"Our nation is being destroyed by the demonization of differences,'' he says. "The fact that an evangelical pastor believes in keeping the historic definition of marriage -- that’s not news. The fact that the gay community would disagree with me -- that’s not news either. The real story is that a couple of different American leaders have chosen to model civility for the rest of the nation.''

Noting that he has been accused of comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia (based on an interview he gave to Beliefnet), he says in the video, "I believe no such thing.'' He reiterated his opposition to same sex marriage, but said he is in agreement with "the view of the vast majority of the world and the vast majority of religions.''

"Free speech has to be free speech for everybody,'' he says. "Some people feel today if you disagree with them that’s hate speech...I’m neither afraid of gays, nor do I hate gays. In fact, I love them, but I do disagree with some of their beliefs, and I have that constitutional right.''

Warren notes that he is also being criticized from the right for agreeing to speak at the inauguration of a Democrat who supports gay rights and abortion rights.

"I'm doing this because I love America and it’s a historic opportunity and it’s an honor to be a part of any inauguration of any president,'' he says. And, describing his relationship with Obama, he says, "We’re friends and we admire each other even though we disagree on some things.''

Warren's three-part video address is on the website of his Saddleback Church. Here is the most pertinent:

A few other developments on the invocation imbroglio, suggesting the desire from some folks on left and right to lower the temperature:

•A Saddleback spokesman, Larry Ross, tells me that a controversial Q&A on the church's web site, which suggested that gays were welcome to worship but not as members at Saddleback "has not been permanently removed as alleged in some media reports, but rather is being repurposed for clarity.'' Ross said the church will post the following audio from Saddleback Associate Pastor Tom Holladay answering the question, “What Does the Bible Say About homosexuality – is it a sin?”

•Singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge, who talked with Warren Saturday night when both spoke at a convention of Muslims, wrote an open letter in the Huffington Post, explaining why she, as a lesbian, was giving Warren a chance -- she even acknowledged that, "he invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids." An excerpt from Etheridge:

"Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world. Maybe if they get to know us, they won't fear us. I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us."

• Blogger Andrew Sullivan, a gay Catholic and longtime advocate for same-sex marriage, compared Warren's views favorably with those of Pope Benedict XVI, writing, "At least Warren appears open to dialogue, rather than recoiling in fear and loathing. In that he is somewhat more Christian than this Pope." Sullivan had initially been hostile to the Warren selection, but declared more recently:

"I sense an understandable but, the more I think about it, misjudged response on the part of my fellow gays and lesbians. In our hurt, we may be pushing away from a real opportunity to engage and win hearts and minds...If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is."

• And, from the right, Kelly Clark, who blogs locally as The Lady in the Pew, takes on her fellow abortion opponents who have suggested that Warren shouldn't speak at the inauguration because Obama supports abortion rights:

"I think—actually, I know because I looked the word up in the dictionary—that the invocation is a prayer. Duh. And, as a pro-life, pro-family Roman Catholic lady, I find nothing at all wrong with a pro-life, pro-family pastor praying at the inauguration of, whether you like it or not, our next president, God willing. Go for it, Pastor Warren! Now more than ever, this country needs prayer. And that includes president-elect Obama...and me and you, too."

Meanwhile, TMZ reports that Warren, clearly concerned about his image (not only did he release these new videos but on Saturday night he also proclaimed his love for gays, as well as straights, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Democrats and Republicans, while speaking to a convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council) visited a thrift shop that benefits AIDS treatment in West Hollywood yesterday, where he put his arm around a gay man and gave him a signed copy of one of his books.

Merry Christmas!

(UPDATE: Over at Christianity Today, Sarah Pulliam has an interview with Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's son) who praises Warren, and says, "The news is mostly all about nothing. It's a few people on the far left who feel that Obama should not have any evangelicals or Christians involved in the inauguration. Millions of Christians voted for Obama, and they have every reason to be at the table. This is his inauguration, and Obama has every right to do that. Those that are making noise have forgotten that it's not their inauguration. It's Obama's inauguration.")

(UPDATE: CNN's The Situation Room has an interview with Pat Robertson today. Robertson also praises Warren, and says, "All he's been asked to do is give an invocation. He isn't asked to endorse Obama. He's going to stand up there on the steps of the Capitol and he's going to say, God, please bless this country. And he will do that very well.")

(Photo of Rick Warren by Hector Mata/AP.)

I must admit that I was already experiencing some Rick Warren fatigue over the weekend (too much blog reading while snowbound...), but I perked right up when I heard this, which sounds like the start of a joke: Rick Warren met Melissa Etheridge at a convention of Muslims Saturday. It's hard to know where even to begin with this, except to observe that this must be one of those only-in-America moments, where an evangelical preacher who opposes gay marriage and abortion, and who is being vilified by gay rights advocates for the language he used to express his opinions, is invited not only to give the invocation at the inauguration of a president who supports abortion rights and gay rights (although, it must be noted, not gay marriage) but is also invited to speak at a convention of Muslim leaders (who don't support gay marriage either, but who also have never been high on the list of people evangelicals most often praise) where he meets a rock star, of whom he turns out to be an autograph-seeking fan, who is a lesbian (and, apparently, intrigued by Sufism) whose marriage to a woman may be invalidated by the ballot measure the evangelical supported, and the two of them talk.

It's not exactly clear what happened, but Warren later declared, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights." And Etheridge's wife blogged, "hath hell frozenth over? rick warren was humble and kind. honey and i are to go to his church sometime soon. and honey invited him to our house for an afternoon, to be with our family.''

Maybe this was Obama's point in the first place.

(Photos, by Hector Mata/AP, show Warren and Etheridge at the Muslim Public Affairs Council convention in Long Beach on 12/20/08.)

Barack Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration has stirred up quite a bit of concern, particularly from folks on the left unhappy that a preacher who opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights is being given such an honor by a Democratic president.

It strikes me that there’s some irony to the firestorm that has erupted over his selection, since Warren has made a point of attempting to distinguish himself from an earlier generation of partisan evangelicals – Falwell and Robertson come to mind – by repeatedly outlining a broader set of policy concerns for Christians and by focusing his own efforts on AIDS, poverty and the environment. But he has also been unambiguous in his opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and that has fueled widespread criticism from what is sometimes called the religious left.

I’ve met Warren a number of times – we chatted a bit when he spoke at the Kennedy School at Harvard a few years back and when he spoke to a convention of religion reporters in San Antonio last year, and this past spring I interviewed Warren and attended a lunch with him at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass., an evangelical college where Warren was the commencement speaker (his niece was in the graduating class).

Obviously, Warren has his supporters as well as his critics. This morning I talked with one of them, Gordon College president Jud Carlberg, about the controversy. Here’s what he had to say.

Q: What do you make of the choice of Rick Warren?

A: To have President-elect Obama choose a man of breadth and character, which Rick Warren is, and a man who represents kind of a broad evangelical perspective, is a wonderful signal to Christians of all varieties that President-elect Obama wants to work with a wide range of people to make this a better country.

Q: What about the criticism from abortion rights supporters and gay marriage advocates?

A: His positions on abortion and gay rights are clear, but what I appreciate is that he has positions on a whole range of issues that are of concern to Americans, and his spirit and attitude is one of motivating churches, and people within churches, to speak to a whole range of issues, and not to allow just one or two to be the flagships. It’s important that we as Christians take the full-orbed teachings of Christ and put them into practice, and while many of us would be concerned about abortion and gay marriage and so on, those are issues that should not be the only concerns for Christians.

Q: What has his impact been on the evangelical political agenda?

A: Rick has opened up a lot of minds and hearts to seeing a broader Gospel, and also has reawakened the evangelical movement to responsibilities beyond our own country, especially in Africa. His work is an example of taking the Gospel to new outreach to needy people, people that are poor and impoverished, and trying to address the AIDS problem.

Q: Is he the next Billy Graham?

A: Billy Graham was out of a mold that’s been broken. I think Billy Graham, for his time, could be compared to Rick Warren for this time, but there are a lot of differences between the two men, and they’re shaped by the environment and the culture in which they ministered. One of the commonalities is they both have the same kind of spirit, an irenic spirit, reaching out to people they disagree with, and saying let's work together on the issues we can work together on.

Q: It’s never clear to me whether Rick Warren is an evangelical leader or just a successful author.

A: It’s an interesting question. I think he’s a leader by example and by his communication skills, and by his spirit, by his attitude. He’s concerned about things all of us ought to be concerned about, and he’s an inspiration without being preachy.

Q: What’s the point of the invocation anyway?

A: The purpose of an invocation is to invoke the blessing of God upon the president and upon the leadership and up on the nation. It’s a delicate thing, because you can’t be sectarian in a public event like that.

Warren himself issued a statement on the flap yesterday, saying:

"I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony. Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America. The Bible admonishes us to pray for our leaders. I am honored by this opportunity to pray God’s blessing on the office of the President and its current and future inhabitant, asking the Lord to provide wisdom to America’s leaders during this critical time in our nation’s history."

And Obama addressed the controversy as well, telling reporters:

“I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency. What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”

UPDATE: In addition to the criticism of Obama from the left, there is criticism of Warren from the right. Human Life International, an organization that opposes abortion rights, e-mails a statement from its president, the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, asking Warren to reconsider his participation, and saying, "We are concerned that his high-profile and explicitly Christian prayerful invocation at President-elect Obama’s inauguration may be perceived as an endorsement, even a blessing, of what will likely be the most anti-life administration in the history of this country.”

(Photo, by Nick LaVeccia/Gordon College, shows Rick Warren, standing at left, receiving an honorary degree from Gordon College President Jud Carlberg, standing at lectern.)

President-elect Barack Obama (right) has tapped Rick Warren (left), the most prominent evangelical preacher of the post-Billy Graham generation, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. The decision was announced today by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Warren pastors the Saddleback Church, a megachurch in Orange County, California, but he is best know as the author of the best-selling "Purpose Driven Life" and its many spinoffs. And Warren has been a forceful advocate for reordering evangelical priorities -- he does not support abortion or same-sex marriage, but his public priority has been combatting AIDS in Africa, and he has criticized the politicization of evangelical Protestantism.

Warren has hosted Obama several times; in 2006, he invited Obama to speak at his church on World AIDS Day (an invitation that drew some criticism of Warren from the right); in August of this year Obama and the GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, were interviewed on live television by Warren in an election forum; and earlier this month, on World AIDS Day, Obama offered taped remarks praising President Bush's work on AIDS, which was being recognized by Warren at Saddleback.

The choice is winning praise by anti-abortion groups that have been concerned about the Obama administration. The Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody blogs, "Pro-life pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at President-Elect Barack Obama’s inauguration. It makes a whole lot of sense. Even though Warren and Obama disagree on the life issue, they do see eye to eye on many social justice issues. This move is also classic Obama because it is a signal to religious conservatives that he’s willing to bring in both sides to the faith discussion in this country. Obama has never shied away from that."

But advocates for abortion rights and same-sex marriage are furious. People For the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert called the choice "a grave disappointment,'' citing Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, and writing, "Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn't need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.'' And blogger Andrew Sullivan, under the headline "Ugh" wrote: "Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

(Photo taken at Saddeback Aug. 16 by Mark Avery/Reuters.)

Richard Cizik, one of the more prominent evangelical voices in the country, has resigned under pressure as the vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals after saying that his views on same-sex marriage were shifting.

Cizik got into trouble over a remark he made in an interview with Terry Gross of the public radio show "Fresh Air.'' In response to a question about same-sex marriage, he said "I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think."

Christianity Today's Sarah Pulliam reports today's news:

Richard Cizik resigned Wednesday night as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) during a week of growing uproar over his comments that he is shifting his views on same-sex unions.

"Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized, and affirmed our values, there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituencies," Leith Anderson, president of the NAE wrote to board members today. Cizik did not return calls for comment.

Last year, more than two dozen evangelical leaders sought to oust Cizik, who has been vice president for 28 years, because of his "relentless campaign" on global warming.

"For better or for worse, Rich became a great, polarizing figure," said Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship. "He was gradually, over a period of time, separating himself from the mainstream of evangelical belief and conviction. So I'm not surprised. I'm sorry for him, but I'm not disappointed for the evangelical movement."

Pulliam also has the transcript of her interview with NAE president Leith Anderson here. A key quote from Anderson: "The NAE's position on gay marriage is not shifting. And we are not advocates for civil unions, although many evangelicals recognize the reality that civil unions have become law in many states. But we're not advocating for them."

UPDATE: Harry Knox, the director of Religion and Faith Program for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which is a gay rights organization, on Friday issued a statement on Cizik's resignation. An excerpt:

“Perhaps most disturbing about the NAE’s decision is that it makes no room for its leaders to grow in their belief. If the NAE won’t allow one of its most renowned and celebrated members to wrestle with Scripture and grow in relationship to God then it is doing nothing more than making an idol of tradition and sacrificing their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender neighbors before it. When Rev. Cizik spoke publically about his shifting position on lesbian and gay relationships he was speaking as a man of God. He let other Evangelical Christians know that the word of God is larger than our preconceptions and prejudices.”

KEY WEST _ At the final session of the Faith Angle conference today, two prominent survey researchers, John C. Green and Anna Greenberg, examined a variety of polling data about the relationship between religious affiliation and voting behavior in this year's presidential election.

The chart above shows the bottom line, and reinforces patterns that have been in place for at least the last two decades -- Democrats are favored by minority ethnic and religious groups, as well as by less observant white Christians, while Republicans are favored by more observant white Christians. The chart was generated by Green (left), who is a political science professor at the University of Akron, and also a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which is the sponsor of the conference.

Green suggested that the basic structure of "faith-based politics" did not change much since the 2004 campaign -- despite unprecedented efforts by the Obama campaign to move religious voters, and a lot of erroneous predictions by pundits -- but that it was enough to elect Obama. "It was not very different than we’ve seen in the past, but different enough to have a different result,'' he said. He said the Democrats made their biggest gains among minority religious groups (particularly Hispanic Protestants) and failed to make significant gains among white Christians (although there was some movement to the Democrats among evangelicals who go to church less than weekly, and among young evangelicals).

The minimal change demonstrates, Green said, "that these basic differences are deeply embedded.''

"Religious groups are strongly partisan these days, and deeply embedded into the party coalitions,'' Green said -- meaning that groups like black Protestants and Jews are important parts of the Democratic coalition, while white evangelicals play a similar role for the Republican Party. "In the short run, there is only a limited capacity for religious groups to move.''

Among Catholics, Green said, the data shows increasing polarization, with weekly communicants shifting more to the right, and less frequent Massgoers shifting further to the left.

Greenberg (right), is a Democratic pollster and senior vice president at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. She had several interesting findings -- among them, that Barack Obama was clearly underperforming (compared to previous Democratic candidates) among Jewish voters through much of the campaign, but that he wound up with about 78 percent of the Jewish vote -- which is typical for a Democratic presidential candidate. Greenberg, who said "I was actually pretty shocked" at how well Obama did among Jews, said it was not clear how Obama succeeded in moving Jews back to the Democratic column, but speculated that it was the combined effect of concern among Jewish voters about Sarah Palin's social conservatism, and what Greenberg described as the reassuring effect on Jewish votes of Obama's performance during the debates. Green agreed, saying, "Many Jews are Democrats, and once they became reassured that some of these problems were not serious, they went back to their partisanship...Once the Jewish community became reassured that Obama was going to be all right -- not that he was going to be excellent -- that was enough.''

Perhaps Greenberg's most interesting finding, though, has to do with young evangelicals -- a population of increasing interest to scholars and journalists because of the perception that they may exhibit different political behaviors than their elders. Greenberg said that research shows that young evangelicals in fact are more liberal than older evangelicals on multiple issues -- including gay marriage (below), global warming, and the Iraq War -- but are not moving on abortion -- young evangelicals are just as strongly opposed to abortion as are older evangelicals.

Green said that, although white evangelicals are still strongly Republican, there is clearly change taking place among younger evangelicals. "Generational change happens all the time on a steady basis, but there are points of time when it has a big effect, and evangelicals are going through one of those times, on religious terms, social terms, and political terms.''

KEY WEST _ This afternoon's session at the Pew Forum's semi-annual Faith Angle conference focused on the interplay between religion and race during this year's presidential campaign, which, as everyone knows, saw the first African-American elected president of the United States. The speaker was Eddie S. Glaude Jr. (right), a professor of religion and African-American studies at Princeton.

Glaude, like many, sees the election of Barack Obama as a signal moment in the history of race in America; he called it "an extraordinary ritual of racial expiation.''

"It's all about race,'' he said. "We couldn't say that during the election. But it's historic. How do we deal with the ghastly ghosts of our past?...These ghosts are constantly reminding us of how earthly and human this fragile experiment in democracy has been. And his election, for African American communities in particular, and for the nation in general, is a signal that the true work begins January 20.''

Glaude was dismissive of the discussion in the media about where the Obama family will worship in Washington, a storyline that Glaude called "rather crazed." "Will he join a black church or not? Such questions are freighted with the weight of our current national malaise -- the continued interrogation of his identification. Is he really black, after all?" Glaude suggested that the fixation with Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, falls into a similar pattern, in that Wright, "served as a proxy for the claim about Obama's otherness...he really is black, and therefore is a candidate only for 'them'.'' He also said that the discussion of whether Obama should worship in a predominantly black church is related to the discussion of whether America has entered some kind of post-racial moment, a concept that Glaude called "a lazy American way of marking something that's shifted" and compared to a Ralph Ellison envisioned- "fantasy of the blackless America.''

Glaude said that it will be interesting to watch how the black church is affected by the Obama election. "There is an extraordinary transformation taking place within African American churches,'' he said, pointing to the emergence of megachurches, the "Pentecostalization of much of religious life,'' and, in both church and politics, the emergence "for the first time of a cadre of leadership in the African-American community that has no biographical experience of slavery or Jim Crow.''

"How will black suffering speak publicly?'' Glaude asked. "Wherever power is operating, there is a role for a prophetic voice, but it's going to be complicated because a black man is running the empire.''

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington-based law firm that often comes at religious freedom issues from a conservative vantage point, has called further attention to the tension between religious freedom and gay rights in the aftermath of the passage of California Proposition 8. The measure would, if upheld by the courts, overturn same-sex marriage in California; its passage has been greeted with multiple protests, often targetting the Mormon church, by same-sex marriage advocates critical of the role of conservative churches in the campaign. The Becket Fund ran a full-page ad in Friday's New York Times touting a new organization called "No Mob Veto'' and inviting supporters to sign a petition. In a news release, the Becket Fund decried not only "anti-religious protests" but also "homosexual intimidation" -- the ad itself used more temperate language, arguing that criticism is acceptable but that "anti-religious propaganda" is wrong. An excerpt:

"The violence and intimidation being directed at the LDS or 'Mormon' church, and other religious organizations -- even against individual believers – simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage and must stop."

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, a gay rights organization, immediately denounced the ad as "untruthful,'' and issued a series of statements from religious leaders who support gay marriage, including this comment from the Rev. Susan Russell, who is the president of Integrity, a gay rights organization in the Episcopal Church:

“Several signatories to the ad are generals in the culture wars. They lied about gay people in the campaign, and now they are lying again when they say we are in favor of mob intimidation and violence. I personally talked legitimately angry demonstrators in California out of such action and every credible LGBT organization called for peaceful resistance to the Prop 8 travesty. Many of the leaders cited in this ad preach hate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, then look the other way when LGBT people are the victims of hate crimes. This ad is an act of individual and corporate hypocrisy.”

And the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal organization, said:

"While I wholeheartedly disagree with the position of the LDS church on proposition 8, I agree with the signers of the ad that they have every right to their opinion. I do wonder if the signers will be willing to spend tens-of-thousands of dollars along with their prestige the next time a primarily gay congregation’s legitimacy is called in to question, or a mosque is targeted for harassment."

(Photo, by Max Whittaker/Getty, shows a demonstration on the steps of the California State House in Sacramento on Nov. 22.)

The latest development in the discussion of the role of religion in the passage of California's Proposition 8, the measure that would overturn same-sex marriage in that state, is a comic musical video, made by advocates of gay marriage, that imagines Jesus (played by actor Jack Black) singing in support of gay rights. Obviously, this video comes from one side in a highly contested debate over what Christianity has to say about homosexuality. The video features not only Jack Black, but also Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Margaret Cho, Rashida Jones.

AP Entertainment writer Jake Coyle reports, "The video was posted Wednesday on FunnyOrDie.com, the video site co-founded by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay...The video was conceived and written by Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer of "Hairspray" and "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut." McKay, who had previously collaborated with Shaiman on the song-and-dance routine Ferrell, Black and Reilly did at the Oscars earlier this year, sent him an e-mail floating the idea of a video."

And over at ArtsBeat (The New York Times's arts blog), Dave Itzkoff has a Q&A with Shaiman about what Itzkoff calls a "comedic song-and-dance diatribe." Itzkoff also reports that "In just one day of online existence, the Funny Or Die video 'Prop 8­ — The Musical” has received more than 1.2 million hits'.''

Here's the video:

There's been a lot of other news on the faith-and-8 front. Some highlights:

In tomorrow's issue of Catholic San Francisco, Archbishop George H. Niederauer (left) defends the churches, including Catholics and Mormons, that supported Proposition 8, writing,

"Why was it done? Some voices in the wider community declare that there could be only one motive: hatred, prejudice and bigotry against gays, along with a determination to discriminate against them and deny them their civil rights. That is not so. The churches that worked in favor of Proposition 8 did so because of their belief that the traditional understanding and definition of marriage is in need of defense and support, and not in need of being re-designed or re-configured. Some of our opponents respond with this question: Even if these churches saw the California State Supreme Court decision in May as damaging to the institution of marriage as they understood and valued it, shouldn’t they have kept quiet and stayed on the sidelines? Some would say that, in light of the separation of church and state, churches should remain silent about any political matter. However, religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy. Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith. Indeed, to insist that citizens be silent about their religious beliefs when they are participating in the public square is to go against the constant American political tradition. Such a gag order would have silenced many abolitionists in the nineteenth century and many civil rights advocates in the twentieth."

And the Public Policy Institute of California yesterday released new poll results finding that "Proposition 8, the ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state, drew its strongest support from evangelical Christians and Republicans.''

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley may have ambivalent feelings about the incoming presidential administration, but he's about to have some pretty good connections there as well. The two older brothers and a sister-in-law of archdiocesan spokesman Terrence C. Donilon (right) are all expected to land high-ranking posts in the Obama administration. Terry is the youngest of four Donilon siblings; his brother Mike has been named counselor to the vice president, his brother Tom is expected to become deputy national security adviser, and Tom's wife, Cathy Russell, has been named chief of staff to Biden's wife Jill. Interestingly, the Donilons are not the cardinal's only connection to Biden -- the archdiocese retains as public relations consultants the firm of Rasky Baerlein, headed by Larry Rasky, who served as Biden's campaign spokesman in 2007 and in 1988. (Biden will be the first Catholic vice president, but is also viewed warily by some bishops because he, like Obama, supports abortion rights.)

In Politico Friday, Alexander Burns wrote about Tom and Mike Donilon and Cathy Russell. An excerpt:

"How has this trio ended up so close to the center of an administration promising an infusion of new blood? There are a number of reasons, but the most important is Joe Biden. 'Cathy goes back 20 years with Joe Biden, and Mike goes back even longer on campaigns; Tom goes back more than 20 years,' said a friend of the Donilon family who asked not to be named. 'They stayed very close over the years with the Bidens, so that’s part of it.' In a news release, the transition team noted that Mike Donilon had advised the Delaware senator since the early 1980s, and both Tom Donilon and Cathy Russell worked on Biden’s 1988 presidential run."

Terry has also worked in politics -- he once served as press secretary to former Rhode Island Governor Bruce Sundlun, district director and communications director for former Rhode Island Congressman Bob Weygand, and special assistant in the administration of former Providence Mayor Joseph Paolino. A fourth Donilon sibling, Donna, works as a nurse.

(Photo by Dina Rudick, Globe staff.)

The New York Times editorial board today endorsed an investigation of whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints violated campaign finance laws with its enthusiastic support of Proposition 8 to roll back same-sex marriage in California. (The measure passed, but is now being challenged in the courts.) An excerpt:

"Based on the facts that have come out so far, the state is right to look into whether the church broke state laws by failing to report campaign-related expenditures...Churches, which risk their tax-exempt status if they endorse candidates, have more leeway in referendum campaigns. Still, when they enter the political fray, they have the same obligation to follow the rules that nonreligious groups do."

The California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating the role of the Mormon church in the campaign in response to a complaint from Californians Against Hate, an organization supporting same-sex marriage, alleging that the Mormon church failed to report non-monetary contributions to the campaign. The Mormon church has posted explanations of its position, along with statements defending it, here.

Also, San Francisco Chronicle religion writer Matthai Kuruvila on Friday took a look at an argument by some supporters of same-sex marriage that the Mormon church and others should lose their tax-exempt status because of their advocacy work. The story suggests that such a move is highly unlikely. An excerpt:

"Interviews with experts and activists on the issue say Prop. 8 opponents should look elsewhere for reasons to criticize the measure's supporters. 'They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption,' said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue. 'While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives.' Generally speaking, churches, schools, and nonprofits that are 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities, Lynn said, noting that his organization is held to the same standard. The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - to violate their tax-exempt status."

(Photo, by Reed Saxon/AP, shows a gay marriage protest outside the LDS temple in Los Angeles on Nov. 12.)

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has just released a letter defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has been repeatedly targeted for protest in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, the California measure that would overturn same-sex marriage in that state. The Mormon church urged its members to contribute money and time to help pass the measure, and many did; the Catholic church also supported the measure, which is now being contested in the California courts.

Here is the letter, which was sent Nov. 21 from Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz (left) of Louisville, who is the chairman of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, to Thomas S. Monson, president of the Mormon Church:

"Dear President Monson, On behalf of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I am writing to express prayerful support and steadfast solidarity with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members in view of recent events. We have watched with great distress in recent weeks as some members of society have reacted intemperately, and sometimes even violently, to the decision of the voters in support of Proposition 8 in California. We have been especially troubled by the reports of explicit and direct targeting of your church personnel and facilities as the objects of hostility and abuse. We pray that prudence and healing may prevail. The members of the Committee offer you our profound gratitude for your role in the broad alliance of faith communities and other people of good will who joined together to protect marriage, while at the same time, witnessing to the honor and respect due to every human person created in the image and likeness of God. Fraternally yours in Christ, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz"

The Mormon church has posted on its web site previous statements expressing concern about anti-Mormonism in the protests over Proposition 8; some of the statements are from groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, that opposed the referendum.

California is facing a measure that would restrict gay rights amidst a national debate over how the nation's legal framework should view homosexuality. The conservative religious community throws its muscle behind the proposition. And the gay community protests. Sound familiar?

That was the scenario not only this year, when California voters approved Proposition 8, which would overturn same-sex marriage, but also in 1978, when California voters rejected Proposition 6, which would have barred gay and lesbians from working in the schools.

The 1978 battle is at the heart of the new biopic, "Milk," which opens tomorrow, and which seems likely to intensify the focus on the tension between conservative religious congregations and gay rights advocates. The film is about the political career of Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist who was assassinated shortly after being elected to the San Francisco board of supervisors.

I saw the film at a screening last night, and the parallels drawn between 1978 and 2008 are unmistakable. In depicting the debate over Proposition 6, the so-called Briggs Initiative, the film focuses on the role of Anita Bryant in rallying conservative Protestant churches to support the measure.

Although the film has actors recreating most roles, it uses archival news footage of Bryant, as well as reports by Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite and others, to document the campaign. Bryant, who was affiliated with a conservative Southern Baptist congregation, is clearly situated in a religious context, and the film suggests that the debate over gay rights in the 1970s helped spur the political activism of the religious right. The film also places Milk's assassin, Dan White, in a deeply Catholic subculture -- a key scene in the film occurs at the christening of White's child, where Milk and White discuss gay rights, and White's wife suggests the topic is inappropriate in a church.

The dynamics on display in 1978 are, of course, echoed in the current debate over the role of the Mormon church, as well as Catholic, evangelical, African-American and Hispanic congregations, in supporting Proposition 8. In the three decades since the period depicted in the film, homosexuality has roiled many American denominations, with ceaseless battles over whether to ordain gays, whether to bless gay unions, and whether to support same-sex marriage. In response to the religious right, a religious left has emerged that is supportive of gay rights, so the debate now takes place not only between the religious and the nonreligious, but also within the world of religion. But the film offers a provocative look at one of the early acts in this still unfolding drama.

(Photo, by Phil Bray/Focus Features, shows Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in "Milk.")

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life offer a critical look at how the news media covered the role of religion in this year's presidential campaign in a report released today. (The Pew graphic at right shows the percentage of the overall religion-related campaign coverage that focused on each candidate.) An excerpt:

"Religion played a much more significant role in the media coverage of President-elect Barack Obama than it did in the press treatment of Republican nominee John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign, but much of the coverage related to false yet persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

Meanwhile, there was little attempt by the news media during the campaign to comprehensively examine the role of faith in the political values and policies of the candidates, save for those of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

And when religion-focused campaign stories were covered by the mainstream press, often the context was negative, controversial or focused on a perceived political problem."

Some reactions from around the blogosphere:

Steven Waldman at Beliefnet writes:

"For those of you feel that Obama would have lost if only the press had paid more attention to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, consider this finding from a fascinating new Pew study of press coverage of religion in the campaign: 'Looking at the entire primary season and general election period together - from January through mid-October - the Wright controversy was the single largest press narrative in the campaign, religious or otherwise'.''

And Mark Silk at Spiritual Politics says:

"In its just released overview of news coverage of religion in the campaign, Pew ranks "Palin Family/Personal Issues" as the biggest religion story of the campaign after Obama's alleged Muslim identity, consuming fully 25 percent of religion-related campaign coverage. In late September, a Pew report noted 'the relative lack of attention to Palin's religious biography within the mainstream media,' and nothing happened afterward to require altering that assessment. For those disposed to assail the MSM for inattention to religion, this is a pretty good case in point. Not that it was an easy story to get. I'm convinced that Palin, aided and abetted by her handlers, engaged in a conscious occultation of her religious beliefs and commitments. But journalists often dig out things public figures try to hide. The most charitable view I can summon is that in this case they began to feel that the truth might be sufficiently disturbing as to suggest that Palin ought not occupy the second highest office in the land. But doesn't the Constitution forbid religious tests for office? So let's not go there, and hope we never have to deal with the possibility. In the end, they didn't."

Planned Parenthood today sent along a response to criticism of the organization from Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston. O'Malley had singled out the organization in a post-Election Day interview with me about abortion and politics; the cardinal said that Obama "is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which in its origins was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it’s sort of ironic that he’s been co-opted by them.''

The Planned Parenthood response does not address O'Malley's critique, but rather alleges that the cardinal is out of step with Catholics (a suggestion O'Malley in some ways might not dispute -- he has repeatedly said that the some of the church's teachings are "countercultural,'' and that the church could do better persuading rank-and-file Catholics of its teachings; however, he also has pointed out that weekly communicants are more often in agreement with church teachings than less frequent church attenders.)

Here is the Planned Parenthood response, from Dianne Luby (right), the president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts:

"It diminishes Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley’s credibility when he attacks President-elect Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood for views and services his own members overwhelmingly support. He and several of the other participants at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are eager to jump into politics, as we saw recently with their comments about President-elect Obama’s position on abortion. If Cardinal O’Malley is going to opine on politics, and the bishops are planning to discuss lessons learned from last week’s election, it would be good for them to understand why their messages didn’t stick with their primary audience.

President-elect Obama’s success stems from his ability to propose solutions that reflect the reality of issues faced by the American people. According to estimates by the Catholic Bishops of the United States, 92% of married Catholics use some form of birth control. And a 2006 poll conducted by RKM Research and Communications revealed that 72% of Catholic voters in the Commonwealth support comprehensive sex education – which includes information about abstinence, condoms and birth control – in our public schools.

These are issues that the Catholic Church and Cardinal O’Malley have repeatedly refused to acknowledge as a mainstream part of health and education in our society. Perhaps Cardinal O’Malley should spend less time sharing political opinions and more time listening to the reality of life for his own constituency.

The Catholic Church has an opportunity to reconnect with their members around these issues. Cardinal O’Malley in a recent interview in Baltimore said, “We want to do all that we can to reduce the number of abortions.” President-elect Obama succeeded with voters by highlighting messages about preventing unintended pregnancy and reducing the need for abortion. At Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, we share that belief and would welcome the opportunity to work with Cardinal O’Malley towards this goal.

For more than eighty years Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts has been a trusted healthcare provider and advocate for affordable care. We provide high quality, affordable services to those in need, including birth control, cancer screenings and sexual health education. In fact, 70% of our services are related to preventative care, not abortion.

Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts offers comprehensive sex education programs that focus on abstinence but also on prevention. We think that abstinence is the right goal for young teens, but we live in the real world and we know that this isn’t always the case. It is important to provide young people with the tools and information they need to make good decisions and enter into healthy relationships. Our programs empower parents to be the primary sexuality educators of their children in order to keep them safe and healthy, goals for parents that are certainly shared by the Catholic Church.

Cardinal O’Malley and the bishops have a lot of work to do in order to reconnect with their members. The constitutional right to abortion has always been a very private decision between a woman, her physician, her family and her clergy. It appears from exit polls during this most recent election cycle, that Cardinal O’Malley is out of step with most voters on this very personal decision. The American public has re-asserted why they do not agree by defeating anti-choice referendums in California, Colorado, and South Dakota.

President-elect Obama bridged differences across party and religious lines to resounding success. We must all follow his example, by changing the focus from what divides us to our shared goals of reducing abortion and decreasing risky behavior among young people."

Obviously this is an emotional issue for many people; please feel free to offer your own thoughts here, but these comments are monitored (by me) so if you want anyone to see your comment, no obscenities, and try to keep the name-calling in check.

(Photo by Tom Herde, Globe staff.)

James J. Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute, sends along an interesting column he has written exploring the wary reaction among Arab Americans to the selection of Rahm Emanuel (right) as the next White House chief of staff. Zogby shoots down many of the wilder rumors about Emanuel, but also criticizes President-elect Obama for not doing more to assauge the Arab-American community's concerns. An excerpt:

"Putting aside the fiction or, more accurately, the slanderous myths, the truth is that Emanuel is an effective leader in Congress. He is a strong supporter of Israel. But then, how many members of Congress are not? Emanuel is Jewish and his father is an Israeli. Arab Americans should be especially sensitive to attacks on anyone based on religion or ethnicity. He has worked closely with and is liked by the Arab American Members of Congress from both parties, and he was the architect of the 1993 White House lawn signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords that brought Arab Americans and American Jews together. When, in 1994, Rahm accepted my invitation to a luncheon with Arab American community leaders, those who met him were impressed by his openness and honesty."

And one more:

"I am concerned by the slowness of the Obama camp to respond more quickly or effectively to address the situation. Modern political operations have learned the need to confront false stories, to manage perception, and to anticipate problems—and, here, the Obama team had been especially masterful. During the campaign, for example, they repeatedly demonstrated how tuned-in they were to public perception – and in particular to matters that might have created discomfort in the Jewish community. They knew that these stories needed to be shot down quickly. (American Muslims understood much of this, despite feeling slighted, at times.) But in this most recent instance, the Obama camp displayed both inattentiveness and tone-deafness to Arab misperceptions about who Rahm Emanuel is, and what role he will play."

(Photo by Charles Dharapak/AP)

Bishop Richard J. Malone of Portland, Maine (formerly an auxiliary bishop in Boston) on Sunday asked all of his state's parishes to read a letter opposing same-sex marriage in the Pine Tree State. From the AP story:

"The leader of Maine's Roman Catholic diocese issued a letter opposing gay marriage, to be read at weekend Masses. 'To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate,' Bishop Richard Malone (left) said in his letter. The letter appeared days after the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine, a group of Maine ministers from different faiths, announced their support for gay marriage. It also follows referendums in California, Arizona, and Florida in which same-sex marriage bans were imposed. The advocacy group EqualityMaine said it gathered more than 33,000 names on Election Day in support of marriage for same-sex couples."

Here's an excerpt from Malone's homily:

"Marriage, as it has been known and lived for millennia, is under attack in our country, and now, in our own state. Much of the argument to legalize so-called 'same sex' marriage is motivated by a concern, and a sincere one, I am sure, to secure certain legal benefits for people in same sex relationships. The Diocese of Portland has been unwavering in its support of hospital visitation rights or the sharing of health insurance benefits between household members, people choosing to live together whatever their sexual orientation. That only seems fair. However, to insist that complementarity of sexes is a fundamental prerequisite for marriage is not to be unfair."

(Photo, from 1999, by Pam Berry of the Globe staff.)

Among the many decisions Barack Obama has to make as he prepares to move to DC: what church will he attend? As you may recall, the president-elect is currently churchless, having resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago after his pastor's intemperate sermonizing caused controversy for Obama's campaign.

Now Amy Sullivan at Time magazine has asked some members of Washington's pew-punditocracy to offer recommendations for the Obama family. Sullivan offers a witty look at the pros and cons of various Capital congregations. An excerpt:

"I talked to a number of people who know the religious world here in Washington and solicited their church recommendations. At least two people thought that since home churches are a growing trend, you might want to start your own in the White House. A "Church of the Obamas," however, might just fuel the messianic talk. But I think you'll find some good options here, including a couple of intriguing — dare I say maverick — possibilities."

(Photo, by Alex Brandon/AP, shows Obama at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago on June 15, 2008.)

In yet another manifestation of the unhappiness with the Obama election within the Catholic hierarchy, a high-ranking American cardinal at the Vatican last week called the president-elect "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic." The comments were made in a speech at the Catholic University of America by Cardinal James F. Stafford (right), the former archbishop of Denver and now Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary in Vatican City. An excerpt from the story in the Tower, which is the student newspaper at Catholic University:

His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as 'aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,' and said he campaigned on an 'extremist anti-life platform,' Thursday night in Keane Auditorium during his lecture 'Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul.' 'Because man is a sacred element of secular life,' Stafford remarked, 'man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person’s life cannot ultimately be controlled by government'...'For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,' Stafford said, comparing America’s future with Obama as president to Jesus’ agony in the garden. 'On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.' Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the 'hot, angry tears of betrayal' by beginning a new sentiment where one is 'with Jesus, sick because of love'.''

The remarks are occasioning some chatter in St. Blog's Parish. Over at Pontifications, David Gibson says, "I bet that wasn't the tenor of Obama's chat with the Pope the other day. Then again, lieutenants are there to do the dirty work so the white cassock stays clean.'' At Whispers in the Loggia, Rocco Palmo called the speech "an ominous impression of the state of things.'' At the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan opines, "the notion that the recent election of Obama is a sign of the Apocalypse has, until now, been restricted to Protestant loonies." And at American Papist, Thomas Peters takes a slightly more sober view, saying only, "Cardinal Stafford made some noise on the CUA campus last week.''

(Photo, taken in Rome in 2002, by David Ryan of the Globe staff.)

The diocese of Charleston, SC is publicly rebuking the Rev. Jay Scott Newman for suggesting that Catholics who voted for Barack Obama should refrain from presenting themselves for Communion unless they go to confession first. The comments caused an enormous firestorm, and Newman then suggested that he had been misinterpreted, but his diocese, in a highly unusual step, is now saying that Newman misrepresented the church's position, and that Obama voters do not need to go to confession before seeking Communion. The diocese has no bishop at the moment, so the statement was issued by the diocesan administrator, Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, who said, "Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated." Here is the statement in its entirety:

"Statement of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston

This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 'Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.' The Catechism goes on to state: 'In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.'

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston."

The suggestion by a South Carolina priest that Catholics who voted for Obama should not present themselves for Communion without seeking penance first has caused quite a stir -- so much so that, at the moment, his parish web site seems to be down, preventing me from posting his latest comments on the matter for you.

But in the meantime, I've noticed a couple of other indications that Catholic clergy are struggling to figure out how to respond to the victory of Barack Obama in the American presidential election. (Earlier this week, the president of the US bishops conference issued a statement offering cooperation in areas of agreement with Obama but promising to fight against any loosening of abortion restrictions; today, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston wrote about the statement on his blog.)

In England, the bishop of Portsmouth, Crispian Hollis, had to issue a clarification after publishing on his web site a note that was viewed as overly congratulatory of Obama, according to LifeSiteNews. The bishop's initial note expressing pleasure at the Obama victory has been removed from the diocesan web site, but here is his new note:

"Barack Obama A Clarification

I would like to add some words to the statement that I issued last week on the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.

I genuinely welcome his election because he represents such a different political profile from that of President Bush. America – and the world – needs that political change and will benefit from it.

However, I am aware of what he has said about abortion and about the so-called freedom of choice and I deplore his words. There is no way in which I endorse his position on these crucial “life” matters, nor, as a Catholic bishop, could I ever do so.

Perhaps it’s naïve to say this but I hope and pray that the realities of the political process will mean that he has to temper his personal policies on these all important life issues and pay serious attention to the outrage with which many view his “life” agenda.

Bishop Crispian Hollis"

Meanwhile, in California, a reporter has filed a police report claiming that a priest attacked him when he asked about a parishioner who said the priest threw her out of the church parking lot during Mass because she had Obama signs on her car.

The pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Greenville, SC, is urging parishioners who voted for Barack Obama not to present themselves for Communion unless they go to confession first because they have cooperated with "intrinsic evil'' by voting for a candidate who supports abortion rights over a candidate who does not. The Rev. Jay Scott Newman told the Greenville News that he doesn't intend to deny anyone Communion, but made it clear that his view is that Obama voters should not present themselves without seeking penance first "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.''

Newman is the only priest in the U.S. known to have taken this position -- the Catholic bishops met this week in Baltimore and this idea was not even discussed, at least in public session. Newman has posted on his parish web site the following letter explaining his rationale:

Dear Friends in Christ,

We the People have spoken, and the 44th President of the United States will be Barack Hussein Obama. This election ends a political process that started two years ago and which has revealed deep and bitter divisions within the United States and also within the Catholic Church in the United States. This division is sometimes called a “Culture War,” by which is meant a heated clash between two radically different and incompatible conceptions of how we should order our common life together, the public life that constitutes civil society. And the chief battleground in this culture war for the past 30 years has been abortion, which one side regards as a murderous abomination that cries out to Heaven for vengeance and the other side regards as a fundamental human right that must be protected in laws enforced by the authority of the state. Between these two visions of the use of lethal violence against the unborn there can be no negotiation or conciliation, and now our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president. We must also take note of the fact that this election was effectively decided by the votes of self-described (but not practicing) Catholics, the majority of whom cast their ballots for President-elect Obama.

In response to this, I am obliged by my duty as your shepherd to make two observations:

1. Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.

2. Barack Obama, although we must always and everywhere disagree with him over abortion, has been duly elected the next President of the United States, and after he takes the Oath of Office next January 20th, he will hold legitimate authority in this nation. For this reason, we are obliged by Scriptural precept to pray for him and to cooperate with him whenever conscience does not bind us otherwise. Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good. In the time of President Obama’s service to our country, let us pray for him in the words of a prayer found in the Roman Missal:

God our Father, all earthly powers must serve you. Help our President-elect, Barack Obama, to fulfill his responsibilities worthily and well. By honoring and striving to please you at all times, may he secure peace and freedom for the people entrusted to him. We ask this through Our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever.

Amen.

Father Newman

The Associated Press has a story here.

UPDATE: Rev. Newman has posted a response to the AP story here.

(Photo by Dina Rudick/Globe staff.)

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops today wrapped up its semi-annual meeting in Baltimore by approving a statement expressing their hopes and fears about the incoming Obama Administration. The bishops are trying to balance an acknowledgment of the excitement in the nation about the historic nature of the Obama victory with their deep concern about the president-elect's support for abortion rights. The statement was drafted overnight by Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, who is the conference president, after an open discussion yesterday afternoon about what the statement should say; today the bishops discussed the statement behind closed doors and then released it on their web site. George (at podium in photo above) is considered one of the leading intellectuals of the bishops' conference, and the bishops repeatedly expressed confidence in his ability to speak for them. Here is the full text of the statement:

"If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil." (Psalm 127, vs. 1)

The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church's history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.

The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.

In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any "interference" in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.

FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.

This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful. We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation. The common good is not the sum total of individual desires and interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.

Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government. Many issues demand immediate attention on the part of our elected "watchman." (Psalm 127) May God bless him and our country.

(Photo by Steve Ruark/AP.)

Cardinal Francis E. George (left), the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Sen. Barack Obama, the president-elect of the United States, obviously have a deep disagreement over abortion, but they do have one thing in common: they both hail from Chicago (George is a native; Obama a transplant).

Yesterday, at the final news conference of the bishops' meeting (which continues behind closed doors today), I asked the cardinal about his relationship with the president-elect, who has represented Chicago in the Legislature or the Congress for the last decade. The relationship, of course, matters because the bishops have a fairly broad array of public policy concerns. This was the cardinal's response:

"The relationship is not very developed. I’ve met him a number of times, and it’s always been a friendly meeting, never substantive. I would hope, since he is a citizen of Illinois, and Chicago, that we could begin a relationship based upon that fact.''

Another reporter asked whether George is making any effort to meet with the president-elect. His answer: "there are some discussions around that.''

(Photo by Steve Ruark of AP.)

The Catholic bishops yesterday agreed that their conference president, Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, should draft a statement reiterating the church's strong opposition to abortion in the wake of last week's election of an abortion-rights supporting Democrat, Barack Obama, as president of the United States. From my story in today's paper:

The bishops, reeling from an election in which voters seemed to disregard their counsel, have talked about abortion and politics repeatedly during their semiannual meeting here. They agreed to authorize Cardinal Francis E. George, the archbishop of Chicago and the president of the bishops' conference, to write a statement for publication that will spell out their concerns. Also yesterday, the bishops for the first time approved a new "blessing of a child in the womb," which could be said by priests for pregnant women. The blessing was in the works for several years, but took on new significance in light of the bishops' heightened concern about abortion, given the election results. Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville called the blessing "a very tangible way of us to witness, pastorally and sacramentally, the life of the unborn child," and Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, of Paterson, N.J., said, "It is important to reaffirm and focus our attention on the life of the unborn."

(Photo by Steve Ruark/AP)

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is the anti-poverty arm of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has cut off all funding for ACORN, the controversy-plagued community organizing network that has been struggling with fallout from an embezzlement and allegations of voter registration fraud. From my story in today's Globe:

Bishop Roger P. Morin of New Orleans said yesterday that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, an antipoverty program run by the bishops' conference, decided that it could no longer be certain of ACORN's integrity or accountability. The bishops had been giving $1.1 million a year to 41 ACORN affiliates. "We simply had too many continuing questions and concerns about these serious matters to permit any further funding of ACORN groups," Morin said.

(Photo, by Pat Greenhouse of the Globe staff, shows an ACORN volunteer showing a sample ballot to a first-time voter on Election Day in Boston.)

In today's Globe, reporter Michael Levenson takes a look at the reaction to the election night fire at the Macedonia Church of God in Christ in Springfield, a predominantly African-American church under construction which was burned in an apparent arson on Election Night, as Barack Obama was elected the first African-American president of the United States:

"Investigators have yet to determine why the church was targeted, but they say the timing, just hours after Barack Obama broke the highest racial barrier in politics, raised suspicions that it was a hate crime. It touched off a raw fear that has lurked just below the surface in many black communities, that Obama's breakthrough success would trigger a backlash against blacks. 'That's something that's always in our minds, even though we may not voice it all the time,' said Annette Smith, who lives near where the church was destroyed. 'That's always in our mind, the fact that more people are going to come out of the woodwork.'"

(Photo by Dennis Leger/ Springfield Fire Department)

Four years ago, Barack Obama sat down with Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times for a detailed interview about his faith life. She wrote a column about the interview at the time, but now the full transcript is available on Beliefnet, and it's quite an interesting read. Obama does praise Revs. Wright and Pfleger, who became controversial during this year's presidential campaign, but he also talks revealingly about his own upbringing, his conversion experience, his beliefs, and his prayer life. Here's one interesting exchange, about evangelization:

OBAMA: This is something that I'm sure I'd have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.

FALSANI: You don't believe that?

OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That's just not part of my religious makeup. Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston has talked a lot about political issues -- last year, he told me that the support by Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal;'' at the annual Walk for Life this year he praised Sarah Palin, and yesterday, in an interview with me, he made clear his unhappiness with President-elect Barack Obama's support for abortion rights. But O'Malley also, like other Catholic bishops, espouses some left-leaning policy positions, on issues such as immigration and poverty and capital punishment. And O'Malley lives in Boston, where almost all elected officials are Democrats, and in a state, Massachusetts, where the Republican Party is weak.

So I was curious about O'Malley's own voting record, and yesterday I asked John Drake, who covers Boston City Hall for the Globe, to pull the records. Of course, privacy prevents us from learning who O'Malley voted for, but this is what we did learn: the cardinal is an independent (in Massachusetts, that's formally called "unenrolled,'' meaning the cardinal is not enrolled in either political party). He voted in the Republican Party primary this year, but voted in the Democratic Party primary in 2006 (when there was a heated contest for the Democratic nominee for governor). He also appears to have a nearly perfect voting record, meaning that he votes almost all of the time when there is an election; last week, he wrote in his blog about voting (he votes at Cathedral High School, which is conveniently located on the same block as the rectory where he lives), and said, "It is very comforting to see so many people participate in the democratic process and many people — who in the past would not have voted—this year felt compelled to exercise their rights and duties as citizens."

Here is the cardinal's recent Massachusetts voting record (excluding last week's election), showing which prior elections he participated in, which party primaries he participated in (applicable only in primary elections), and the city in which he voted (he was bishop of Fall River from 1992 to 2002; from 2002 to 2003 he was bishop of Palm Beach; he came to Boston in July 2003):

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley yesterday talked with me about his thoughts on the election of Barack Obama as president and the abortion issue. I have a story in today's paper; here is a transcript of our conversation:

Q: So many bishops spoke out on abortion in recent weeks, and yet a majority of Catholics voted for Barack Obama. What do make of that?

A: It was a very complicated election. I don’t think that the abortion issue is what decided the election. It was more the economy, the war, and the dissatisfaction with the present administration.

When I was in high school (in Ohio) I joined the NAACP and did voter registration in black neighborhoods, when I wasn’t old enough to vote myself. And I was there at Resurrection City after Martin Luther King was murdered, and living in the mud with thousands of people on the lawn of the Lincoln Memorial and having off-duty redneck policemen throwing canisters of tear gas at us and shouting obscenities. So, to me, the election of an Afro-American is like the Berlin Wall falling. I mean, for my generation, I suppose young people today can’t appreciate that, but to me it is something very big.

My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood which in its origins was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it’s sort of ironic that he’s been co-opted by them. However, he is the president, and everyone wishes him well, and we will try to work with him. However, I hope he realizes that his election was not a mandate to rush ahead with a pro-abortion platform. And the fact that in states like Florida and California, where he won, the referendums on marriage showed that the people who were more socially conservative voted for him, but voted for him for other reasons than for issues like this.

Q: There’s been a lot of discussion about whether the bishops’ teaching on voting is too nuanced, because it was used in all kinds of ways by all kinds of groups during this election, because it said Catholics are not single-issue voters. What do you think?

A: I think that most Catholics understand what the church’s teachings are and those voter guide things are always problematic but I think in general people understand. It was interesting, if one considers Massachusetts, which is so overwhelmingly Democratic, and 8 years ago Gore got 75 percent of the Catholic vote and four years ago, Kerry, who is Catholic and from Massachusetts, got 50 percent of it, so they lost 25 percent of the vote in four years, and I think a lot of that was the influence of people’s concerns about life issues and things like that. And obviously when you look at the differential between the way that Catholics who are church-going Catholics vote and those who are not church going Catholics, I think that the Catholics reflect the church’s teaching. Not as much as we’d like them to, but certainly this last election there were many other factors that intervened.

Q: You just alluded to the fact that many of the people in your archdiocese are Catholics who support abortion rights, including leading politicians, and both US senators. What is your position on whether they should present themselves for Communion, and whether you should be giving it to them?

A: The church’s teaching on worthiness for Communion and proper disposition is in the Catholic catechism, and it’s no secret, and I support that. There is perhaps a teaching where we have not done as good a job of late as we used to. When I was growing up, we would go to confession every Saturday, we would fast from midnight, there was much more of an awareness of the need to be spiritually prepared and in communion with the church and in a state of grace. Today I think we need to reinforce that teaching a lot. And once that teaching is better understood, then, I think, it will be obvious as to who should be coming to Communion and who shouldn’t. But until there’s a decision of the church to formally excommunicate people, I don’t think we’re going to be denying Communion to the people. However, whatever the church’s decision is, we will certainly enforce.

Q: Your position four years ago was that you did not want confrontations at the altar rail.

A: That’s right. We do not want to make a battleground out of the Eucharist.

Q: There’s been a lot of conversation about whether there’s another strategy on abortion, whether trying to reduce the number would be more effective at this point. What do you think about that idea?

A: We’re always for reducing the number. But we cannot turn our back on the obligation to work for just laws that protect human life, from the first moment of conception until natural death. So obviously we want to do all that we can to reduce the number of abortions, but as long as those unjust laws are on the book, human life is threatened. Now they’re talking about pushing this FOCA, which doesn’t sound to me like it’s going to try and reduce abortions, but simply make them much more accessible to people, and pay for them, at home and abroad. So we must work diligently and tirelessly to change the laws, and work diligently and tirelessly to change people’s hearts, so that there’s a greater realization of the seriousness of this, and how our humanity is diminished when we are not respectful of human life.

Q: Is there anything you would like to see the conference do? Is there some action that you think should be taken?

A: I would just like to see us have a united voice, and a strong response, one that will reinforce that there’s no new way of being prolife, and that we must work on both tracks, trying to reduce the number of abortions and trying to change the laws.

BALTIMORE _ Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago (left), who is the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, this morning opened the bishops’ semi-annual meeting in Baltimore with a nuanced reflection on the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States. George praised the history-making nature of Obama’s election, but also offered a strong reiteration of the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion.

The bishops are meeting at an uncomfortable moment – dozens of them strongly urged Catholics to make the abortion issue their top priority in the voting booth, and yet, according to exit polls, a majority of Catholic voters chose Obama, who supports abortion rights, over John McCain, who opposes abortion. As George said, “we meet amidst enormous challenges to our church, our country, and our ministry.’’ The bishops have scheduled a full discussion of the issue for tomorrow afternoon.

In his remarks this morning, George referred to the church’s interest in the “common good” of society, but said, “the common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice.’’

George said “we must all rejoice” at the election of an African-American president. But he rued the dilemma facing Catholics who oppose abortion in America. An excerpt:

“We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order.’’

George acknowledged that the church faces “dissent from some of her teachings and dissatisfaction with aspects of her governance.’’ But, he said, “Strengthening people’s relationship with Christ remains our primary concern and duty as bishops.’’ And, in an apparent allusion to the Catholic vice-president-elect, Sen. Joe Biden, he said, “We extend that pastoral concern, especially at the beginning of a new administration and a new Congress, to Catholics of either major party serving others in government. We respect and love you, and we pray that the Catholic faith will shape your decisions so that our communion may be full.’’

(Photo, from this morning's session in Baltimore, by Steve Ruark/AP.)

Below is the full text of Cardinal George's address:

FULL ENTRY

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston offered his thoughts on the election of Barack Obama as president in his blog today:

"Of course, this past Tuesday was Election Day. I voted in the gymnasium of the Cathedral High School and the line was around the block. It is very comforting to see so many people participate in the democratic process and many people — who in the past would not have voted—this year felt compelled to exercise their rights and duties as citizens. The election of an African-American as president certainly is a historic moment in our history. Hopefully, it indicates that the worst legacies of slavery and racism are behind us. It is also a sign to the world that the majority of Americans do believe in equality and want to promote racial equality in our country and in the world. Our prayer is that the new administration and the new Congress will work for a just and lasting peace and to protect the dignity of human life in all its stages, from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death."

(Photo by David Ryan of the Globe staff.)

Today is the 90th birthday of evangelist Billy Graham (above right), who is increasingly confined to his mountain retreat in North Carolina. His son, Franklin, told the Associated Press that Graham's health is weak enough that he will not be able to consult with President Obama in the way that he has advised many previous presidents. "My father feels like his time and day for that is over," Franklin Graham said. "But he would certainly like to meet (Obama) and pray with him."

To mark the occasion, Gordon College in Wenham, where Graham was a trustee from 1955 until 1972, published an open letter to Graham quoting some of its faculty and alumni who have seen Graham in action. Some excerpts:

“In 1949, the Billy Graham Crusade came to Boston and began on New Year’s Eve. What did that crusade mean to us who were Gordon students? For those 17 days in January 1950 we talked of little else. We held prayer meetings. We volunteered as personal workers and to sing in the choir. Yes, we still had to go to classes—I don’t remember our professors lightening the load of assignments. But the whole campus was focused on the Billy Graham meetings. The kitchen served our main meal at noon and prepared bag suppers for those going downtown. People were turned away every night so we had to get there early. Going back on the subway, whole cars filled with people singing praises to God—in Boston! . . . The crusade impacted many of us in significant ways. Your messages, straight from the Bible, clearly pointed people to Jesus Christ as the answer to their deepest problems, and they responded by the thousands.” — alumna Pauline Kolodinski Brown ’50.

“I ‘got saved’ at a Billy Graham crusade in October of 1971, in the Anaheim Stadium in Orange County, California. There are a thousand reasons I might have fallen away—my counterculture leanings back then, my mainline-bordering-on-Unitarian upbringing—but my conversion ‘took,’ and all these years later I am still a disciple of Jesus Christ. I am forever grateful for Billy’s huge heart and his straight-shot approach to evangelism.” —Patty Hanlon, director of publications in the Office of College Communications.

“Several years ago I heard you speak at the Memorial Chapel at Harvard University on What Does the Cross of Christ Mean to You? I was so grateful that you did not compromise the gospel message in any way for the Harvard community, but presented the good news of the cross at Harvard as you have around the world. May God richly bless you during this time of your birthday celebrations.” —Roger J. Green, professor of biblical and theological studies.

If you have recollections about Graham's crusades here in Boston or elsewhere, feel free to share them here.

(Undated photo above, courtesy of Gordon College, shows Graham, at right, with Harold J. Ockenga, the president of Gordon College from 1969-76.)

New Hampshire State Rep. Eileen Flockhart (right), a Democrat from Exeter, is a churchgoing Catholic who supports abortion rights and gay rights. In the current issue of Conscience, a newsletter published by Catholics for Choice, Flockhart writes of how her parish ousted her as a lector because of her views. An excerpt:

"Shortly after the Civil Unions bill passed, I got a call from my pastor wanting to make an appointment with me. Being the eternal optimist, I thought this would be a great opportunity for some real dialogue on this and other issues. What was I thinking? After a few pleasantries, he got down to business. He said that he had had some complaints from parishioners and that in light of my votes in the House it was inappropriate for me to stand up as a lector. My public positions as a representative were inconsistent with Catholic teaching. He asked me to leave my ministry as a lector, effective immediately. Initially I was furious, but as our discussion continued I decided that I could not go without speaking my mind. The many, many ways that we as church exclude and do not welcome God’s people is staggering to me. I could not imagine the God of my own faith being so heartless. I asked if we as a parish could have a discussion about some of these very topics that trouble us all. He said that he would pray about it and get back to me. He never did."

There must be a lot of disappointed Catholic bishops this morning -- dozens of them issued statements over the last few weeks suggesting that abortion should be the primary issue for Catholic voters, and yet it appears that a majority of Catholic voters opted for the abortion-rights supporting candidate in the race, Barack Obama, and helped him win the presidency. Obama's running mate, Joseph Biden, will become the first Catholic vice-president, but he, too, is a supporter of abortion rights.

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, last night e-mailed his analysis, saying, "Catholic voters ignored the instructions of a group of vocal bishops and delivered 54% of their vote for Barack Obama as president of the United States." He cited a number of factors -- the importance of the economy, the endorsement of Obama by a few highly visible anti-abortion lay Catholic intellectuals, the presence of Biden on the Democratic ticket, and Obama's support for abortion reduction. But, Reese warned, "Will the abortion debate rise up again in four years at the next presidential election? A lot depends on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they push through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), then they will have betrayed their pro-life Catholic supporters. This will make it nearly impossible for these people to support them again. On the other hand, if they make a priority the enactment of an abortion reduction bill, then it will be more difficult for the bishops and the Republicans to portray the Democrats as the pro-abortion party."

Deal Hudson, of InsideCatholic.com, offered a different take this morning, saying he wonders how much support Obama got from Catholics who regularly attend Mass, but that, "regardless of the final statistics, it is clear that the Obama-Biden ticket received substantial help from Catholics working for parishes and chanceries, as well as a number of high-profile Catholic politicians and jurists." Hudson criticized the bishops' voters guide, saying it opened the door to Catholics to vote for a candidate who supported abortion rights, and he declared, "History will show that Catholics helped to vote into office a president whose record contradicts our most fundamental moral belief -- the sanctity of human life."

This morning, Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement congratulating Obama. The bishops are scheduled to discuss their relationship with abortion-rights supporting Catholic politicians during their semi-annual meeting in Baltimore next week, and they obviously will have differences, as well as agreements, with an Obama administration, but today was a day for graciousness. The letter from Cardinal George:

"I write to you, in my capacity as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to express our congratulations on your historic election as President of the United States. The people of our country have entrusted you with a great responsibility. As Catholic Bishops, we offer our prayers that God give you strength and wisdom to meet the coming challenges. Our country is confronting many uncertainties. We pray that you will use the powers of your office to meet them with a special concern to defend the most vulnerable among us and heal the divisions in our country and our world. We stand ready to work with you in defense and support of the life and dignity of every human person. May God bless you and Vice President-elect Biden as you prepare to assume your duties in service to our country and its citizens."

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington also issued a congratulatory statement this morning, saying:

"We offer our prayers today for our nation and for our newly elected leaders, including President-elect Obama, as they take on their new responsibilities. We recognize that this election of the first African-American president is an historic moment in our nation’s history and we rejoice with the rest of our nation in the significance of this time. May our nation’s new leaders be guided in their decisions with wisdom and compassion and at the heart of all of their decisions may there be a deep respect for and commitment to the sanctity and dignity of all human life and support for the most vulnerable among us."

UPDATE: Pope Benedict XVI has also sent a note to Obama. The Vatican hasn't made it public, but Catholic News Service has some details:

"Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, said that because the message was addressed personally to Obama, the Vatican did not plan to publish it. However, he said, the papal message opened by referring to the 'historic occasion' of the election, marking the first time a black man has been elected president of the United States. The pope congratulated Obama, his wife and family, Lombardi said. 'He assured him of his prayers that God would help him with his high responsibilities for his country and for the international community,' Father Lombardi said. Asked if the pope mentioned any specific issues he was concerned about, Father Lombardi responded, 'peace, solidarity and justice.' The pope also prayed that 'the blessing of God would sustain him and the American people so that with all people of good will they could build a world of peace, solidarity and justice,' the spokesman said."

(Photo, by Sandy Huffaker/Getty, shows a voter placing her ballot in the box at La Quinta de Guadalupe Catholic Church in Imperial Beach, California, yesterday.)

I'm helping out our political team with coverage from Chicago today; if you're interested, I just filed a description of the street scene as people gather for tonight's Obama election night rally.

The student newspaper at Gordon College, an evangelical Christian college in Wenham, Mass., has endorsed Barack Obama for president. The paper, called the Tartan, does not have a web site, but here's the full text of its endorsement:

"Over the past week, as we have collected responses and insights from students and faculty to put together this special Election Edition of the Tartan, we have heard some intriguing and thought-provoking arguments from republicans, democrats, and independents about why they are supporting their candidate of choice. After much serious consideration, the Tartan is pleased to offer its endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

Last spring, when the Tartan endorsed Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination, it was because he “offers the unique opportunity to have a president who inspires the public imagination to envision what is possible and empowers its leaders and citizens to rise to the occasion.” In the months since then, Senator Obama has more than lived up to these words. He has offered strong, even-keeled leadership in the face of economic turmoil; he has remained calm, thoughtful, and articulate when discussing issues of healthcare, energy, and foreign policy; and he has inspired a grassroots movement – both at home and abroad – to support his candidacy. For these reasons and more, we believe that Senator Obama is most fit to lead America through these uncertain times and to begin the process of rebranding and reclaiming good standing in America’s foreign relations.

Furthermore, while we acknowledge Senator McCain’s long history of bi-partisanship, we believe that the manner in which he has managed his campaign has not reflected strong leadership and more importantly, has not demonstrated that he is capable of bringing about the changes necessary to move beyond petty partisan feuding and begin making real progress in Washington. While both candidates had ugly moments in their campaigning, Senator McCain’s advertisements and stump speeches were consistently negative – trying to tear down his opponent, rather than make a case for his own candidacy. This way of campaigning is in line with the Rovian tactics of the last administration – a type of campaigning that America would do well to leave behind moving into the future.

Likewise, we agree with Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, and many other well-respected conservatives, that Senator McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was reckless and cynical. It has become very clear over the past few weeks that Governor Palin is grossly unfit for the job she is running for - much less, the job she would resume should something happen to Senator McCain. As recently as last week she was quoted as saying the role of vice-president was to “be in charge of the Senate.” This, in addition to her comments about the role of the vice president being left intentionally vague by the framers of the Constitution, reflect a lack of understanding of basic tenants of the position for which she is running. And in light of the secrecy and abuse of power in the last administration, Governor Palin’s “mix-ups” should be met with much harsher criticism.

The Tartan believes that Senator Obama possesses the necessary leadership skills, policy experience, and critical thinking ability to be an effective commander-in-chief. But more than this, he possesses these traits without a hint of cynicism. He is thoughtful and wise at a time when we need thoughtfulness and wisdom. And for this reason, we believe he is the ideal candidate for the presidency."

One of the more interesting, and less-explored, religion angles to this year's political action is the emergence of dissent within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over the church's strong efforts to help pass Proposition 8, which would overturn same-sex marriage in California.

The church's support for Proposition 8 is not a surprise -- the Mormon church opposes homosexual activity and teaches that people who experience same-sex attraction should be celibate -- and the church has thrown itself into the campaign in California, spending millions of dollars and urging its members to work to pass the measure. In June, all church leaders were asked to read a letter to their congregations, declaring, "We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

But Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage have also been increasingly outspoken, launching several web sites, such as Mormons for Marriage. And the San Francisco Chronicle has reported that Steve Young, the Hall of Famer quarterback and a descendant of Brigham Young, has a "No on 8" sign on his lawn.

At a Mormon Studies panel yesterday at the American Academy of Religion meeting in Chicago (where I also spoke, about my experience covering Mormonism in Boston), Doe Daughtrey of Arizona State University declared that the emergence of Mormons opposed to Proposition 8 marks "the most concentrated example of Mormon dissent in the last 20 years." And Daughtrey offered a provocative hypothesis: that the campaign of Mitt Romney for president inadvertently fueled the emergence of outspoken Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage, because questions about Romney's relationship to Salt Lake City had led the church to repeatedly declare that it was OK for Mormons to go their own ways on political issues (See: Harry Reid.) It's an interesting theory, and one that was greeted with skepticism by some in the audience, and some folks questioned what the actual size of the dissenting Mormon population is, but it seems clear that the question of how Mormons responded to their church's role in the California marriage campaign will be the subject of further debate and research.

(Photo, by Trent Nelson/AP, shows Mormons delivering petitions expressing their support for gay marriage to an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Oct. 17 in Salt Lake City.)

The ecumenical newsletter Vital Theology has taken a stab at an early but serious reexamination of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (above), who was Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor until video of some of Wright's more incendiary preaching surfaced and caused controversy for Obama's campaign. Vital Theology asked a number of theologians to weigh in the question, “What is the theology of Wright, and how does his rhetoric advance and/or impede it?” A PDF of the answers is here. The responses are largely sympathetic to Wright, but attempt to explain where he is coming from. As a sample, here's the response from Vincent E. Bacote, an associate professor of theology at Wheaton College.

"Jeremiah’s Wright’s theology is a progressive gospel which has a tight focus on the context of the African-American community. While not excluding others, it emphasizes the flourishing of African Americans in a context that has been hostile for most of U.S. history. In light of Wright’s background theologically and the church’s identity denominationally, this should surprise no one. The rhetoric in the video clips reflects, on the one hand, prophetic preaching that is also found in more conservative circles where America is given a warning because of certain sins (like abortion). On the other hand, whether hyperbolic or not, some of the words may mask rather than reveal Wright’s theology, because some hearers may attend more to controversy than God’s liberating activity."

Six prominent black ministers in Boston are asking clergy around the state to urge voters to reject Question 2, a measure on the Massachusetts ballot Tuesday that would decriminalize the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. In the Globe, David Abel reports:

"The ministers and other opponents of the initiative - including the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys statewide - argue that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when authorities say marijuana has become more potent than ever. They warn it would increase violence and workplace safety hazards and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence."

An excerpt from the letter, by the Boston TenPoint Coalition:

"As ministers whose congregations are predominantly people who are poor and of color we look at this threat with the great concern because it is one with which we are already all too familiar. The history of drug and alcohol abuse in society in general, and among the poor and communities of color, is well known and dangerous to ignore or forget. It is a history whose pages are filled with individual and collective stories of pain, violence, loss, exploitation, and wasted potential. For some who do not live in inner city neighborhoods, marijuana use might be regarded as a victimless crime or even a rite of passage. In the communities we serve however, the reality is very different. Marijuana is a common denominator substance used in connection with many other crimes. Marijuana is a big business and its dealers do not hesitate to use violence to protect sales and turf. Finally, marijuana dealers look at our children as their growth market."

(Photo by Viktor Pivovarov/iPhoto.ca)

The Globe poll of likely New Hampshire voters confirms a truism about American politics: the more often one goes to church, the more likely one is to vote Republican.

Although New Hampshire has been viewed as a swing state, the poll found that the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, has a 15-point lead over the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in the Granite State. But McCain has a 12 point lead among those who say they attend religious services at least once a week.

"In 2000 and 2004, the second biggest predictor of presidential vote, after your party, was how often you go to church,'' said pollster Andrew E. Smith, who is the director of the Survey Center at the University of New Hampshire. "Part of it is that the Republican Party has made a conscious effort to attract more religious voters, the values voters, since the 1960s or 70s.''

Here are the details:

I hadn't caught this, but several alert religion bloggers have noted that, in her guest appearance on Saturday Night Live, GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin told actor Alec Baldwin (left) that she prefers his brother, Stephen (right). That's of interest in evangelical circles because Stephen is the born-again Baldwin brother, as AP reporter David Bauder noted in his story.

Over at GetReligion, Daniel Pulliam writes:

"The reference is subtle enough that many people missed it or just failed to mention it. I know while watching the show Sunday morning (after a good night’s sleep) I didn’t pick up on the reference. I wonder whether the SNL writers knew the connection they were making between Palin and the other Baldwin?"

At Christianity Today, Sarah Pulliam also makes note of Palin's preference.

Here's the SNL clip:

In today's paper, I have a story about Arab-American voters in Dearborn, Michigan. The story is part of a Globe series, Snapshot America, in which reporters are visiting cities and towns across the nation to ask people about how their communities have changed over the last eight years, and what issues are on their minds as this election approaches. An excerpt from the Dearborn story:

As America prepares to vote, the large and diverse Arab-American community of Dearborn finds itself striving but shunned, eager to engage but often unwelcome, and with concerns born of ethnicity overshadowed by concerns about the economy. "We need to stop the war and work on the local economy," said Norman Hamood, 48, who has been helping out at a convenience store since losing his job when his auto plant closed in 2005. Hamood, who was born in Michigan after his parents emigrated from Lebanon, went on to say, "America should be first."

There's also a video (below) and a slide show featuring pictures taken by Essdras Suarez of the Globe staff. (Essdras also shot the photo above, which shows a voter registration drive, part of the Yalla Vote campaign, at the Islamic Center of America mosque in Dearborn.)

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday has largely overshadowed the former secretary of state's comments about an issue that has dogged the Obama campaign: the false rumor that the Democratic presidential nominee is a Muslim (Obama is Christian). The rumor is damaging because there is a huge amount of animus toward Islam among the voting public -- a poll last year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 45 percent of Americans said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who was Muslim.

Powell (left), speaking on "Meet the Press,'' is among the first major public figures to question why it is a slur to call a candidate a Muslim. While explaining his concerns about the McCain campaign to Tom Brokaw yesterday, Powell (an Episcopalian) said the following:

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.''

The issue was previously raised most prominently by CNN anchor Campbell Brown, in a commentary Oct. 13. Here's what she said:

"So what if Obama was Arab or Muslim? So what if John McCain was Arab or Muslim? Would it matter? When did that become a disqualifier for higher office in our country? When did Arab and Muslim become dirty words? The equivalent of dishonorable or radical? Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong with being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media is complicit here, too. We've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur. I feel like I am stating the obvious here, but apparently it needs to be said: There is a difference between radical Muslims who support jihad against America and Muslims who want to practice their religion freely and have normal lives like anyone else. There are more than 1.2 million Arab-Americans and about 7 million Muslim-Americans, former Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, successful business people, normal average Americans from all walks of life. These are the people being maligned here, and we can only imagine how this conversation plays in the Muslim world. We can't tolerate this ignorance -- not in the media, not on the campaign trail. Of course, he's not an Arab. Of course, he's not a Muslim. But honestly, it shouldn't matter."

The conversation is getting the attention of the Muslim blogosphere. Over at MuslimMatters, Amad writes of Powell:

"This honorable man spoke for the millions of Muslims, troubled by the 'Muslim smear' – the millions, a majority of whom will be voting for Obama not due to Obama’s faith but his policies, the millions who have been wondering, 'what if he is [a Muslim]?' Thus, we cannot let this moment get away, we cannot let these profound statements of Colin Powell get washed away in the rhetoric, and the giddiness or despair surrounding it(depending on which side of the Presidential election one is). Because endorsement will hopefully help a few troubled hearts reconcile with Obama, but the endorsement of millions of Muslims by Powell helps millions of troubled hearts find a little peace, that there are men in this country who are willing to speak the truth. Upright men in this country, who stand up to their own parties or to their own affiliated groups, and stand up and say that 'no sir, you cannot get away with this.' Stand up and say 'what if he is [a Muslim]?'"

Feel free to post your own thoughts here, but please be civil -- comments that include obscenities, hate speech, or encouragement of violence will not be approved.

(Photo from "Meet the Press"/NBC.)

Bishop Blase J. Cupich (right), of Rapid City, S.D., is warning that there is another issue, besides abortion, for Catholic voters to be concerned about: racism. Writing in America magazine, the Jesuit weekly, Cupich does not name Barack Obama, but reflects on the fact that for the first time a major party has nominated an African-American for president, and declares, "racism is a sin." An excerpt:

"In any election people have many reasons to support one candidate or to oppose another. Some of these reasons may be wise and good, some not so good, and others simply wrong. The promotion neither of abortion nor racism can ever be a motivation for one’s vote. Voting for a candidate solely because of that candidate’s support for abortion or against him or her solely on the basis of his or her race is to promote an intrinsic evil. To do so consciously is indeed sinful. That is behavior incompatible with being a Christian. To allow racism to reign in our hearts and to determine our choice in this solemn moment for our nation is to cooperate with one of the great evils that has afflicted our society. In the words of 'Brothers and Sisters to Us', 'It mocks the words of Jesus, ‘Treat others the way you would have them treat you.''''

Over at dotCommweal, David Gibson writes, "It is one of the only pieces I’ve seen from a religious leader addressing the ugliness emerging over the Obama candidacy."

HT: Rocco Palmo.

The two major party presidential nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama, both showed up last night for the 63rd Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York. The event is occasioning some chatter in St. Blog's Parish because Obama is a supporter of abortion rights, and the event supports programs of the Archdiocese of New York; four years ago, Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry was not invited because of his support for abortion rights.

Diogenes:

"The American bishops have generally agreed that political candidates who favor unrestricted legal abortion should not be given opportunities to speak at Church-sponsored events.
•unless the events raise $5 million for Catholic Charities
•unless the events are hosted by the cardinal-archbishop of the nation's most prominent city
•unless the events are covered by every imaginable major media outlet
•unless the events are light-hearted, humorous affairs.
Because under those circumstances, you see, the archdiocese isn't endorsing the pro-abortion candidate. It's just showing that someone can support the deliberate slaughter of unborn human beings and still be a heckuva fun guy."

David Gibson:

"There are at least a couple of ironies here. One is that the political bloodletting in the Catholic Church has reached such a point that a dinner honoring the first Catholic presidential candidate–and a man reviled for his faith–is virtually off-limits to Catholic candidates. For the last Al Smith dinner, in 2004, Cardinal Egan refused to host John Kerry because he is a pro-choice Catholic. Instead he invited former Republican President George H.W. Bush and former New York Gov. Hugh Carey, a Democrat, as this CNS story explains. Problem is, according to much of the “pro-life” rhetoric, Obama is the most “pro-abortion” candidate EVER, to the point that he supports “infanticide.” (Yes, “scare quotes” are necessary given the nature of allegations.) So how is it that Obama gets to appear and Kerry doesn’t? Putting up a “No Catholics Need Apply” sign at the Al Smith event may be the ultimate paradox."

(Photo, by Andrew Theodorakis of AFP, shows McCain and Obama flanking Cardinal Edward M. Egan.)

For the first time in a presidential debate, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama tonight went at it on abortion, and they had a fairly lengthy exchange on the issue (video is below). Each said he did not have a litmus test for choosing a Supreme Court justice, but McCain said he believed Roe vs. Wade was a "bad" decision, while Obama defended it.

McCain criticized Obama’s record on abortion in the Illinois state Senate, saying that Obama voted against “a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion” and also against a ban on partial-birth abortion. "I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro-abortion movement in America," McCain said. "And that's his record."

Obama responded by saying that the medical attention measure was duplicative of an existing law, would have undermined Roe vs. Wade, and was opposed by the Illinois Medical Society. On partial-birth abortion, Obama said he supports a ban but only with an exception for the mother’s health and life. Obama also said "Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance" this presidential election, because the next president is likely to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice. And Obama cited "religious advisers" as among those with whom a pregnant woman could consult about whether to have an abortion.

In their discussion, the candidates touched on the question of abortion reduction, which is a theme in the abortion debate this year. An excerpt from Obama’s comments:

"This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views. But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, 'We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.' Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances."

McCain said "We have to change the culture of America," but also said that the effort at abortion reduction does not change legislative strategy for anti-abortion people. An excerpt from McCain:

"Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health.' But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it's vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we'll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we'll help take care of it."

A couple of other observations on the debate from the perspective of a religion writer: at the close of the debate, there was an exchange about school vouchers, which McCain supports and Obama opposes, but no specific discussion about the impact on religious schools.

And, once again, there was no mention of God.

(Photo, by Gary Hershorn/AP, shows Obama and McCain at their final debate, at Hofstra University in New York.)

George Weigel (left), the prominent conservative Catholic writer best-known for his authoritative biography of Pope John Paul II, offers in the new issue of Newsweek a detailed and thoughtful rejoinder to the anti-abortion academics who have endorsed Obama. In the piece, Weigel reflects on the energetic response some bishops have mounted this year to statements by abortion-rights supporting Catholic Democrats, and turns his attention to the challenges the bishops, and anti-abortion Catholics, might face in an Obama administration. Weigel even raises the specter of some kind of tax protest. An excerpt:

"Many U.S. bishops...seem exasperated with Catholic politicians who present themselves as ardent Catholics and yet consistently oppose the Church on what the bishops consider the premier civil-rights issue of the day. It seems unlikely that the bishops, having found their voices after discovering the limits of their patience, will back off in an Obama administration—which could raise some interesting questions for, and about, a Vice President Joe Biden, whose fitness to receive holy communion may well be discussed in executive session at the bishops' annual meeting in mid-November. Biden is not the only Catholic who will be seriously challenged by an Obama administration bent on reversing what its pro-choice allies regard as eight years of defeat; pro-life Catholics will face different, if equally grave, dilemmas. The bishops already find themselves defending the Catholic integrity of Catholic hospitals under pressures from state governments; those pressures, as well as pressures on doctors and other Catholic health-care professionals, will increase in an Obama administration, especially if FOCA succeeds in knocking down state conscience-clause protections for Catholic health-care providers and institutions. And should an Obama administration reintroduce large-scale federal funding of abortion, the bishops will have to confront a grave moral question they have managed to avoid for decades, thanks to the Hyde amendment: does the payment of federal taxes that go to support abortion constitute a form of moral complicity in an "intrinsic evil"? And if so, what should the conscientious Catholic citizen do?"

Over at dotCommonweal, Eduardo Peñalver, an associate professor at Cornell Law School, responds. An excerpt:

"From the point of view of a pro-life person who (based on his own prudential reasoning) views the war as unjust, voting for someone who, although he favors abortion rights, promises to end the war as soon as possible can be a reasonable position to take, even if that pro-life voter accepts everything Weigel says about the impermissibility (at all times and all places) of laws permitting abortion. Such a person is choosing between a candidate who, among other things, will not take decisive action to stop such state-sponsored murder and a candidate who will not take decisive action to erect new legal barriers to private killing and who, in fact, has promised to remove existing barriers. Even accepting Weigel’s assertion that it is categorically impermissible to do what Obama is proposing to do with respect to abortion laws, those who have made the (admittedly prudential) determination that the war as unjust are confronted with grave evil on both sides of the political equation. Now, Weigel will reply that the deaths in Iraq pale in comparison to the deaths from abortion, but then we have shifted away from questions about intrinsic evil versus prudential judgments and into the domain of how to weigh the likelihood of progress on abortion against the likelihood of progress on Iraq. And that seems to be clearly a prudential question properly left to the conscientious reflection of individual voters."

(Photo, by Wiqan Ang of the Globe staff, shows George Weigel lecturing at St. Paul Church in Cambridge in 2006.)

The latest edition of NAE Insight, the newsletter of the National Association of Evangelicals, has just arrived in the mail, and there's a thoughtful analysis of the two presidential candidates, from the vantage point of an evangelical, by the organization's vice president, Richard Cizik (left). An excerpt:

"Two different sets of philosophy are at stake: Obama is a Christian – no doubt about that – though he’s a thinker who sees the grays in ethical choices ('when life begins is above my pay-grade'). He hints at his values when he talks about tax cuts and health care policies. But he is indirect. McCain is less inclined to see the adiaphorous ethical middle ground between black and white. He opts for clarity of moral opposites ('life begins at conception'). Neither man is an evangelical, though Obama has given faith more thought and reflection. (I’ve seen this up close, being among the 25 leaders who met with him in Chicago during the summer.) Two different definitions of change are at stake: Obama has become the champion of policy changes – a switch from Republican to Democratic policies, on a range of issues from the war to taxes and the economy. McCain has become a champion of systemic changes – promising to shake up Washington and change the system. Two different sets of character are at stake: Obama has attempted to sell himself as a 'healer' personality. McCain has portrayed himself as a 'warrior' who will fight for his values, which are less traditional conservatism and more about his own brand of 'maverickism.' Either way, unless we think theologically, allowing our mindset to be shaped by our biblical principles (e.g., see 'For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility'), our political views and attitudes will be no different from our secular counterparts. Way too many evangelicals who vote (half do not even vote), let political ideology rather than biblical truth determine their vote. And they come across as partisan ideologues."

The indefatigable John L. Allen Jr., a senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, is churning out revealing interviews with leading Catholic bishops gathered in Rome for the Synod of Bishops. Among the most interesting: a prominent African bishop, Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan (left) of Abuja, Nigeria, tells Allen that if he were American, he would vote for Barack Obama, despite the Democrat's support for abortion rights. An excerpt from Onaiyekan:

“The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life. You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions through war, through poverty, and so on...Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life. I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent. If my choice is between a person who makes room for abortion, but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death. It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything. You always have to pick and choose.”

This morning Allen filed an interview with a leading American prelate, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas (right) of Tucson, who is the vice-president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Kicanas describes the American bishops' position this way: "To vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ." But, he says, the American bishops are divided over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should receive Communion, and he suggested that the issue turns on the unresolved question of whether a vote for legislation that provides access to abortion constitutes "formal cooperation" with abortion. Kicanas also reflected on the newly controversial question of whether it is strategically realistic for anti-abortion groups to continue to focus on legislative change, or whether it would be more effective for them to attempt to influence public behavior. An excerpt from Kicanas:

"Someone told me once that they think the legislative question is lost, both in terms of same-sex marriage and in terms of abortion, and that what the church should be focusing its energies on is changing the thinking in order to lead people not to choose abortion. I certainly think there’s some importance to that. We may find ourselves hamstrung in terms of our capacity to change legislation, or the thinking of legislators. Yet we can still work to make our teaching more influential in changing people’s thinking, helping them to see that there are alternatives, there are opportunities to find support, whether it’s financial or whatever – whatever the pressing concern is that leads to a decision as a difficult as it is, to abort a child. I think we need to do both, in some ways. I don’t think we can give up on the legislative challenge, but I think we have to work more intensively to try to change the thinking of people, to help them understand why the church teaches what it does."

In the new edition of Newsweek, Lisa Miller profiles Kirbyjon Caldwell, the African-American megachurch pastor who was a high-profile supporter of George W. Bush and is now a supporter of Barack Obama. Caldwell's church, Windsor Village United Methodist in Houston, claims a congregation of 14,000. An excerpt:

In this fraught and divisive election season, it is hard to remember the excitement religious conservatives felt about Bush in 2000. His plain-spoken evangelical faith and his commitment to supporting religious groups through government funding motivated even many African-Americans and Hispanics to vote the Republican ticket for the first time in their lives. (In 2004, religious African-Americans were credited with winning Ohio for Bush.) Caldwell voted for Bush for president not once, but twice. Twice he gave the invocation at Bush's Inauguration. He spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom; he dined with Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall; and this past May, standing before a Texas limestone cross festooned with white blossoms, Caldwell presided over the marriage of First Daughter Jenna Bush and Henry Hager. But after Bush's two terms in office, Caldwell, who is 55, has seen little evidence of the revival he promised that night in 2000. Last summer he aligned himself with a man who he believes better represents the Christian ethics and American values he preaches: Barack Obama.

(Photo, by Rick Bowmer/AP, shows President Bush hugging the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell during the 54th Presidential Inaugural Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral Sunday, Jan. 21, 2001 in Washington.)

Duquesne University law professor Nicholas P. Cafardi (right), a prominent Catholic legal scholar who who opposes abortion rights, has resigned from the board of the Franciscan University of Steubenville after criticism of his decision to endorse Barack Obama for president.

The Catholic News Agency reports:

Shortly after becoming aware of Dr. Cafardi’s position in support of Sen. Obama, the university, which is known for its strong pro-life convictions, issued a statement emphasizing that Cafardi’s views were his own private views and underlining the university’s opposition to abortion. Four days after distancing itself from Cafardi, university president Fr. Terence Henry announced that he had received a voluntarily submitted letter of resignation from Dr. Cafardi, and that he had accepted the board of trustee member’s resignation.

An unexpected twist in an otherwise religion-free presidential debate tonight: Tom Brokaw alluded to Buddhism.

Brokaw, of NBC News, introduced the final question, from Peggy in Amherst, NH, by saying "it has a certain Zen-like quality." He then proceeded to ask the question, "What don’t you know, and how will you learn it?" that both candidates blew past on their route to closing statements.

Otherwise, not only was there no talk directly about religious beliefs or practices, but there were no references to God or faith.

One issue that came up that is of interest to Jews, Muslims, and many Christians: Israel.

McCain, in describing his support for Israel, twice raised the specter of an Iran-triggered Holocaust, saying "we have to say never again to a Holocaust" and "We can never allow a second Holocaust to take place." McCain also used the word "holocaust" in the first presidential debate, and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, used it in last week’s vice presidential debate.

Obama tonight also referred to the Holocaust, saying, "If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?" He also expressed unqualified support for Israel, saying Israel is "our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world."

UPDATE: Over at Christianity Today's politics blog, Sarah Pulliam hears an echo of Job in Obama's comment, about McCain's health care proposal, that "what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away."

(Pool photo by Getty shows McCain and Obama at the start of the second presidential debate, at Belmont University in Nashville.)

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston, this afternoon addressed hundreds of anti-abortion activists who gathered on Boston Common before marching through the Back Bay as part of the 2008 Respect Life Walk.

O'Malley did not mention either of the candidates running for president, but he did call attention to Trig Palin, the infant son of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin was told during her pregnancy that her son would have Down Syndrome, and she chose not to abort the fetus, making her a hero to the anti-abortion movement.

I'll have a full story on this issue in tomorrow's paper (UPDATE: here's the story), but here is a partial transcript of O'Malley's remarks, along with video from the rally:

"I very seldom get to see any television, but I did watch part of the political conventions, and for me the star of the conventions was Trig Palin, whose mother said that he was 'beautiful' and 'perfect.' And when his little sister used that spit to slick his hair down, I mean, I stood up and applauded.

When Senator Sam Brownback addressed the Red Mass for Catholic lawyers last year, he brought to our attention that, in the United States now, 90 percent of the Down Syndrome children are being aborted. This is what we mean by the culture of death. This is what we're here today about, to try and change, to make our country a safe place for children, born and unborn. It's a very serious task, but it's a very important one, and it's one that we can do. The more voices that are raised, the more that we talk about and witness to the Gospel of Life, the more Americans will come to realize what abortion is: it's not a choice, it's snuffing out an innocent life.

When I was young, everybody smoked, and then all of a sudden, there was what I call the Last Commandment: Thou Shall Not Smoke. And the campaign was out there, telling people how dangerous it was, the percentage of smokers that would die of cancer, how many people who were around smokers would be in danger. Well, that's all true, and I'm glad that that campaign has been so successful. But now we have to let people know that, when it comes to abortion, it's not just a percentage of the children that are dying, it's all of the children. And all of those who were involved in the abortion -- the parents, the nurses, the doctors, the social workers -- they're all being contaminated by this evil and diminished in their humanity and their appreciation for life.

We're not here to impose any religious principles on our nation. We know that this is a pluralistic society. But we're here to say that we must stand up for human rights, and the first human right of all is life."

(Photo above by Michele McDonald/Globe Staff.)

A poll by St. Anselm College finds Sen. Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, with a narrow lead over Sen. John McCain, who opposes abortion, among Catholic likely voters in New Hampshire. The poll found Obama up 43 percent to 39 percent among Catholics.

Among evangelicals, who make up a much smaller portion of the New Hampshire electorate, the poll found McCain ahead 54 percent to 29 percent.

Overall, the poll, conducted for the college's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, finds Obama ahead of McCain by a 12 point margin:

When asked whom they plan to vote for in the Nov. 4 general election, 49% of respondents said Obama and 37% answered McCain. Another 11% said they are undecided, but among those who have selected a candidate, 88% say they will not change their mind. "The results are significant and show upward movement for Obama, but it is still early in the world of elective politics,” said Michael Dupre, NHIOP senior fellow, who designed the poll. “The trends in this poll give us helpful data, but this race remains volatile and numbers leading up to Election Day will reflect that."

Over at Spiritual Politics, Mark Silk says the results provide evidence for his hypothesis that "evangelicals in the North are significantly more likely to prefer Obama than their co-religionists in Dixie.''

Charles C. Haynes (right), a leading expert on religious liberty issues, argues in an op-ed piece published by several newspapers that "In the long history of religion in presidential campaigns, the 2008 race may well be remembered as the sleaziest and most disturbing example of misusing religion to win votes and demonize the opposition." He argues that both sides are guilty, citing widespread attacks on the supposed religious affiliation and beliefs of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, and, during the primaries, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. An excerpt:

"There is a critical difference between faith as motivation and faith as manipulation. Unlike the civil rights movement — where faith was a key motivation for many in the struggle for social justice — the current God strategy by candidates and their surrogates often uses religion as a weapon to destroy opponents in the name of winning elections. Enough is enough. It’s time for the candidates to set an example by dialing back the God talk. Speak out instead for what the Constitution actually requires: A president committed to upholding the First Amendment by keeping government out of religion while simultaneously ensuring that people of all faiths and none are treated with fairness and respect."

Haynes (right) is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington.

(Photo from the First Amendment Center.)

A second prominent anti-abortion Catholic legal scholar has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president. Nicholas P. Cafardi, a law professor and the former dean of the Duquesne University Law School, is an establishment Catholic figure -- he is a leading expert on canon law, he spent 13 years as the general counsel for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, he spent three years on the board of the Canon Law Society of America, and he was appointed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to the first National Review Board advising the church on its response to clergy sexual abuse. He authored an analysis of the bishops' response to clergy sexual abuse, "Before Dallas,'' that was published this year by Paulist Press.

Cafardi (right) explained his decision to endorse Obama in a column for the Religion News Service which was published in the National Catholic Reporter. An excerpt:

"Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close....Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans' immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic."

Cafardi is the second high-profile anti-abortion Catholic academic to endorse Obama; the first was Douglas W. Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University who was formerly the dean of the law school at the Catholic University of America.

(Photo of Cafardi from Duquesne University.)

Joe Biden wasn't asked about whether he should take Communion. Sarah Palin wasn't asked whether she speaks in tongues. In fact, tonight's vice-presidential debate featured only minimal talk of faith at all -- by my count, Biden mentioned God five times, and Palin twice, but all the mentions were essentially idiomatic expressions -- Biden used the phrases "pray God,'' "God love him,'' "God forbid,'' "God bless,'' and "God protect," while Palin said, "God bless her" and "thank God.''

But there were a few moments that struck me as of potential significance to those interested in the nexus between faith and politics:

• Biden and Palin both expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, but in Biden's answer, he said, "That is basically the decision to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it." His syntax was tortured, but he appeared to be saying that the civil laws should protect the rights of people in same-sex relationships, but that faith groups should decide how to describe those relationships. Gay-rights advocates have argued the reverse -- that religious groups should not be allowed to determine the definition of marriage, but that marriage is a civil institution that should be defined by government. In her answer to the gay marriage question, Palin, apparently responding to intimations by liberal critics that her evangelical faith makes her intolerant, asserted "I am tolerant.''
• Both candidates professed strong support for Israel, but Palin went even further, declaring, as she talked about the potential threat from Iran, "We have got to assure them (Israel) that we will never allow a second Holocaust.'' Her comment was reminiscent of a remark made by the GOP presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, at last week's debate, in which he said, "Now we cannot (have) a second Holocaust."
• After the repeated associations of Islam with terrorism during the GOP convention, Palin tonight avoided that language, instead using the phrase "Shia extremists.''

The word choices and thematic points at debates are often carefully rehearsed, so it will be interesting to see whether this language is repeated on the campaign trail going forward, and how it is heard by the affected religious constituencies.

(Photo above, by AFP, shows the vice-presidential debate playing on television at a bar in Beijing.)

A new poll of Jewish voters by the American Jewish Committee finds the Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, with support from 57 percent of those surveyed. The Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, has 30 percent support, and 13 percent remain undecided. The survey was taken before last Friday's presidential debate.

A similar survey four years ago found the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, with 69 percent support among Jews, compared to 24 percent support for the Republican candidate, President George W. Bush, 3 percent for the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, and 5 percent undecided.

In a news release, the American Jewish Committee said it found significant differences among the different Jewish denominations:

"Differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox are pronounced in the support given the presidential candidates. Thus, Obama has the support of 13 percent of Orthodox Jews, as against 59 percent of Conservative Jews, 62 percent of Reform Jews, and 61 percent of the Just Jewish.' Conversely, McCain draws 78 percent of Orthodox Jews, as against 26 percent of Conservative Jews, 27 percent of Reform Jews, and 26 percent of the 'Just Jewish.'"

JTA (the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) explores the results in a story yesterday:

"(Democrats) say that a Republican campaign depicting Obama as overly sympathetic to Palestinians and as insufficiently confrontational with Iran, as well as an internet-based campaign falsely depicting Obama as a secret Muslim, has hurt support for the Democrat among Jews. 'The concerns about Obama, the issues, the smears, the falsehoods, have already been widely circulated and are well known,' said Mik Moore, who runs JewsVote.org, an effort to get out the Jewish vote among Democrats. Matt Brooks, who directs the Republican Jewish Coalition, said his ads in Jewish newspapers in swing states where Jews may make a difference -- particularly Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio -- have raised substantive questions about Obama. Brooks cited Obama's emphasis on the need for more diplomacy in dealing with Iran and his bungled efforts to explain his views on Jerusalem -- and Brooks predicted bigger gains come Election Day. 'This poll is just another data point in an ongoing series of polls that underscore the tremendous problems Barack Obama has among Jewish voters,' Brooks said."

Over at the Spiritual Politics blog, Mark Silk observes:

"The survey period includes McCain's current high water mark; he'd be doing a few points worse if the entire survey were taken in the past few days. As expected, Jewish voters turn out to heartily approve Obama's choice of Joe Biden (73-15), and disapprove of John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin (54-37). Palin's numbers seem unlikely to get any better; I'd guess worse. The Orthodox love McCain, supporting him at a 78 percent clip; but they constitute only eight percent of the community. Just a bit more than a quarter of the others support him. Jewish question of the day: Will Sarah Silverman move the needle?"

Silk is referring to a new video by Silverman urging young Jews to embark on a "Great Schlep" to Florida to persuade their grandparents to vote for Obama. The video is, of course, edgy and expletive-laden, but if you're OK with that, hit the play button:

(Graphic from American Jewish Committee.)

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis and now the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura at the Vatican, told an Italian Catholic publication that the Democratic Party "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death'." Burke was one of a handful of archbishops who said in 2004 that they would deny Communion to Sen. John F. Kerry because of his support for abortion rights. The Catholic News Service reports:

"Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. 'That does not surprise me much,' the archbishop said. 'At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.' Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was 'the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore.' Pro-life Democrats are 'rare, unfortunately,' he said."

(AP Photo/Tom Gannam)

Last night's presidential debate, which was focused on issues of economic and foreign policy, was completely free of talk about religion -- a marked shift in language choice from the words used by both candidates during their acceptance speeches at their party political conventions. A search of the transcript finds not a single reference to God, church, faith, or religion; even when the subject turned to Iran, Israel, and terrorism, neither candidate mentioned Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

The debate did touch on several subjects of concern to religious communities, particularly the Middle East. Both candidates expressed strong support for Israel when talking about Iran. An excerpt from the comments on Iran by the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain:

"My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well. Now we cannot a second Holocaust. Let's just make that very clear."

And an excerpt from the response, also on Iran, by the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama:

"Ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon. So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

(Photo by Reuters.)

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal advocacy organization, is causing a bit of a stir with its call for clergy this Sunday to speak out about candidates for public office, in defiance of IRS regulations limiting political speech from the pulpit. (The regulations allow congregations, as tax-exempt organizations, to take positions on issues, but not on specific candidates.) The ADF is hoping that the event, which it has dubbed "Pulpit Freedom Sunday,'' will lead to a test case challenging the regulations. An excerpt from the ADF's argument:

"It is time for the intimidation and threats to end. Churches and pastors have a constitutional right to speak freely and truthfully from the pulpit – even on candidates and voting – without fearing loss of their tax exemption."

In the Christian Science Monitor today, Jane Lampman reports that about 35 clergy around the country are expected to participate:

"I have a First Amendment right to say whatever I want to say, and I've never thought it was appropriate that as a pastor I could not share my political concerns with the congregation," says the Rev. Gus Booth, pastor at Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn. Mr. Booth will endorse Sen. John McCain on Sunday, and has already told his congregation that as Christians, they could not vote for Sen. Barack Obama due to his position on abortion.

But the restrictions have many defenders as well, among them Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of Interfaith Alliance, which has launched a competing campaign to maintain the boundary between pulpits and politics. Gaddy said in a sermon last weekend:

"I cannot stress strongly enough my objections to turning houses of worship into pseudo-precinct nominating conventions. I am as concerned about what such a practice in houses of worship would do to the integrity and credibility of religion as about what it would do to weaken the Constitution.”

(Photo, shot in 1995, by the Detroit Free Press.)

Next year is the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, and all kinds of festivities are in the works. For religion writers, the celebration will provide an occasion to revisit one of the enduring debates about one of American's most popular presidents -- was he a Christian believer, a skeptic, or something else?

During the just-completed convention of the Religion Newswriters Association, we had an opportunity to visit the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in downtown Washington. That's the church where the Lincolns rented a pew (yes, church pews used to be rented) in the 1860s, until Lincoln's assassination, and the Lincoln pew (in the second row) is still there, available for visitors to sit in.

Dewey Wallace, a religious studies professor at George Washington University and a historian of NY Avenue Presbyterian, told us that "Lincoln is iconic, and as a consequence he's been claimed by people of all directions -- there are those who want to make him out as a conventional evangelical, a skeptic, a deist, or even an atheist.'' Wallace said Lincoln's religiosity has been up for debate because, in part, "on religion, Lincoln was reticent, and he was also, in some of his remarks, rather inscrutable.''

Wallace gave us a brief overview of Lincoln's religious affiliation: he was born in Kentucky to a family of so-called hard-shell Baptists, who were so strongly predestinarian that they rejected missionary activity; although Lincoln came to reject that strain of Baptist faith, his upbringing gave him a strong familiarity with the Bible, and as an adult he was able to quote large portions of the King James Bible from memory. In Illinois, Wallace said, Lincoln was hostile to "the emotional revivalism that was going around,'' and was viewed by friends as a religious skeptic. He married Mary Todd in an Episcopal Church; she went on to join First Presbyterian Church in Springfield, Illinois, and then, in Washington, New York Avenue Presbyterian. Lincoln never joined either church, but he attended periodically with his family, and, in Washington, he befriended the pastor, the Rev. Phineas D. Gurley, who played a particularly important role when the Lincolns' son, Willie, died in 1862.

Wallace cautioned against reading too much into Lincoln's decision not to become a church member, saying that "lots of men in the 19th Century did not join churches, although frequently their wives did.''

Ronald C. White Jr., a Lincoln historian whose new book, "A. Lincoln: A Biography,'' is scheduled for publication in January, also told us that "way too much has been made out of the fact that Lincoln did not join a church." White led us through a reading of Lincoln's famous Second Inaugural Address, which the historian called "Lincoln's Sermon on the Mount.'' In that speech, delivered near the end of the Civil War, Lincoln said of the two sides of the divided nation, "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.'' He used the Bible to condemn slavery, but also to caution against triumphalism, saying, "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.''

White clearly sees in the address evidence of Lincoln's genuine interest in faith, asking us, "Are these the words of someone who was in tow with his wife, and didn't want to attend, or someone who was grappling, at a very deep and profound level...There's something very profound in Abraham Lincoln which I hope can be fleshed out in this bicentennial.''

An interesting aside: White said that the quote attributed to Lincoln by Sarah Palin during her interview with Charlie Gibson, "Let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side,'' may not have been said by Lincoln at all. He said that there are many quotes mistakenly attributed to Lincoln, and that that may be one of them.

And one other related item: the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission last year held a session in Miami on "Lincoln and the Jews,'' exploring the little-known details of Lincoln's relationship with the American Jewish population. David Early, the commission's spokesman, called Lincoln a "hero" to the Jewish community because Lincoln had overturned an order by General Ulysses S. Grant expellling Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. The Miami panel was so packed that the commission is now planning to take the session on the road.

Barack Obama's director of religious affairs, Joshua DuBois (at left, with Obama), and his evangelical outreach coordinator, Wesley Theological Seminary Professor Shaun Casey, made an unexpected appearance at the Religion Newswriters Association convention late yesterday. They apparently wanted to respond to remarks made at the conference by Amy Sullivan of Time magazine suggesting that the Obama campaign was cutting back on its faith outreach efforts, as well as to polling by John C. Green of the University of Akron suggesting that the evangelical outreach was not paying dividends for Democrats.

DuBois, who studied at Boston University and was a leader in a tiny church in Cambridge, said any suggestion that Obama is cutting back resources for faith outreach is "just not true'' and said "our efforts are increasing, not decreasing.'' DuBois said the campaign now includes people devoted to outreach not only to evangelicals, but also to outreach to Catholics and to Muslims and to Jews. And he said that over the next few weeks, the campaign is launching a "faith, family and values tour,'' which will consist of surrogates holding town hall forums in key battleground states.

"What we don't do is try to coopt houses of worship,'' he said. "Our focus is on folks who have Senator Obama's values.''

DuBois said the campaign does not view single-issue voters, especially those concerned primarily with abortion and with same-sex marriage, as among its "persuadables.'' But, he said, there are many moderate evangelicals with broader sets of priorities, as well as Catholics and mainline Protestants, who remain up for grabs. He said the campaign has been making surrogates available to Christian radio stations, holding conference calls with religious leaders, and hosting house parties as part of its outreach. He called the effort "the most robust religious outreach effort of any Democratic candidate in electoral history.''

"The broad brush of evangelical polling is something we don't pay a huge amount of attention to,'' he said.

Casey said he has been spending his time speaking at Christian colleges and in rural communities in Virginia and Indiana, and said, "we are seeing receptivity among young evangelicals.''

(Photo above, by Mike Theiler, shows DuBois and Obama at Messiah College in April.)

John C. Green (left), the University of Akron political scientist who is the nation's most prominent scholar of how religious affiliation affects voting behavior, is just releasing new survey data showing that, even before John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, Barack Obama was failing to move evangelicals into his camp.

Green, releasing initial results of his quadrennial survey of religion and politics at the annual convention of the Religion Newswriters Association, said the most surprising result of his survey was how little had changed since 2004.

"The divisions based on religious affiliation are very deep-seated in the United States, and they are very difficult to change,'' Green said. "It may well be that, if these patterns were to persist, the results would look very similar to 2004, with the high degree of religious polarization.''

A few highlights from Green's study, which was conducted over the summer, before the vice-presidential nominees were chosen and before the national political conventions:
* Evangelicals were supporting McCain at nearly the same rate as they were supporting George W. Bush at the same time four years ago, despite Obama's outreach efforts to evangelicals, and despite the fact that McCain does not share the strong personal connection to evangelicalism that Bush expresses. Green said that evangelical Protestants favored McCain over Obama by 57.2 percent to 19.9 percent.
* Mainline Protestants and non-Hispanic Catholics were divided, but leaning slightly toward McCain.
* Obama was doing best among African-American Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Hispanic Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated. Latino Protestants are one of the groups experiencing the most political change, favoring Bush in the summer of 2004 and Obama in the summer of 2008.
* There has been a slight shift toward more liberal positions on same sex marriage and stem cell research among many religious groups.

Green cautioned that it is still early in the campaign, and that the dynamic could yet shift.

(Photo by the University of Akron.)

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP nominee for vice-president, tonight offered an explanation for her widely circulated remarks, videotaped in June at the Wasilla Bible Church, in which she urged the assembly to pray ''that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them (American soliders) out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that that plan is God's plan.'' The comments have been attacked -- and abridged -- by critics (including Dan Payne in this morning's Globe) who argue that Palin was describing the Iraq War as God's plan. She contests that interpretation.

Here's Palin's exchange on the subject, in an interview today with Charlie Gibson of ABC News:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side. That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

(Photo, of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson of ABC News, from Getty.)

The organization Faith in Public Life, founded four years ago by a coalition of liberal and moderate religious leaders seeking to provide an alternative voice to that of religious conservatives in the public square, has started compiling survey research about religion and politics on its web site. I've just taken a quick spin through the database, which is being called FPL Poll Spot, and it looks like they have included research from a diverse array of sources, including media organizations, polling companies, and academic and religious research groups, without regard to theological or ideological leanings. The data is searchable by faith group.

John McCain is the least openly observant of the four men and women on the major party tickets -- Barack Obama was an active member of a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago (until he quit after his pastor's controversial remarks started damaging him politically), Joseph Biden is a churchgoing Catholic in Delaware, and Sarah Palin is an evangelical Protestant who worships at several Alaska congregations. McCain, who was raised Episcopalian, now sometimes worships at a Southern Baptist congregation in Phoenix; he has talked about the importance of faith in his life, but has not talked much publicly about his churchgoing practices. (Manya Brachear, a religion writer at the Chicago Tribune, takes a look at McCain's relationship with Baptist faith here; and at On Faith, David Waters examines the same issue here.)

But his remarks tonight included, at least as I heard it, the most religious references of the four acceptance speeches, as the GOP nominee repeatedly referred to God, faith, and blessings when describing both his own biography and his passionate patriotism. And, like Obama, he seemed to conflate a faith in God with a faith in America. Some samples:

"I don’t mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I’ve had quite a few tough ones in my life."

"We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential, from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We’re all God’s children, and we’re all Americans."

"We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don’t legislate from the bench."

"I’ve been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I have been her servant first, last and always. And I’ve never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I didn’t thank God for the privilege."

"I was blessed by misfortune. I mean that sincerely. I was blessed because I served in the company of heroes, and I witnessed a thousand acts of courage, compassion and love."

"I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God."

"Nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself."

"I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach."

"Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America."

(Photo by Dina Rudick, Globe staff.)

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, responding to the extraordinary level of interest in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin since she was named the GOP vice-presidential candidate, has pulled together a portrait of the religious landscape of the Last Frontier, and says that Alaskans are "less religious than other Americans." An excerpt:

"GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a self-described 'Bible-believing Christian,' but statistics from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey show that compared with the nation as a whole, Alaska is home to a higher-than-average number of people who are unaffiliated with any particular religion. More than one-in-four Alaskans (27%) describe their religion as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, compared with 16% among the adult population of the continental U.S. In this respect, Alaska closely resembles some other Northwestern states, including Oregon (27% unaffiliated with any particular religion) and Washington (23% unaffiliated)."

The Pew data is interesting in part because, when combined with Palin's very high popularity ratings, it suggests that her evangelicalism and conservative views on social issues were not an obstacle in the eyes of less-religious Alaskans. The survey notes that Alaskans are slightly more supportive of abortion rights than the nation as a whole, and are equally divided over acceptance of homosexuality, just like the nation. Another excerpt:

"Alaskans are somewhat more wary than other Americans of the government's role in protecting morality. More than six-in-ten Alaskans (62%) worry that the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality, while only 33% say that the government should be doing more to protect morality. The general population is more divided on this question (52% worry government is too involved, 40% say government should do more to protect morality)."

His dad was raised a Muslim. He is a Christian. And now, it turns out, Barack Obama's wife's cousin is a rabbi. The Forward, a Jewish weekly, reports:

"Michelle Obama, wife of the Democratic presidential nominee, and Rabbi Capers Funnye, spiritual leader of a mostly black synagogue on Chicago’s South Side, are first cousins once removed. Funnye’s mother, Verdelle Robinson Funnye (born Verdelle Robinson) and Michelle Obama’s paternal grandfather, Frasier Robinson Jr., were brother and sister. Funnye (pronounced fuh-NAY) is chief rabbi at the Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in southwest Chicago. He is well-known in Jewish circles for acting as a bridge between mainstream Jewry and the much smaller, and largely separate, world of black Jewish congregations, sometimes known as black Hebrews or Israelites. He has often urged the larger Jewish community to be more accepting of Jews who are not white. Funnye’s famous relative gives an unexpected twist to the much-analyzed relationship between Barack Obama and Jews in this presidential campaign. On the one hand, Jewish political organizers, voters and donors played an essential role in Obama’s rise to power in Chicago, including some of the city’s wealthiest and most prominent families. But the Illinois senator has struggled to overcome suspicions in some parts of the Jewish community, including skepticism about his stance on Israel and discredited but persistent rumors that he is secretly a Muslim."

As a religion writer, I tend to watch the political campaign with a particular eye toward how religious themes and language are used by the candidates and their supporters. So tonight, I was interested to hear how Republicans gathered in St. Paul for their convention would deal with faith, which is such an important concern to many GOP voters, but also a sensitive subject in an increasingly pluralistic country with a growing population of nonbelievers. As with the Democrats in Denver last week, there was no particularly explicit talk of religous affiliation or beliefs. But, nonetheless, religion did come up several times, on occasion when speakers alluded to their faith, and also when speakers attacked religion-related vulnerabilities of the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, led off the prime time attacks with an oblique reference to Obama's longtime relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was the pastor of Obama's church. Here's what Steele said, apparently alluding to Wright's now-infamous "God damn America" sermon:

"It's not just about John McCain's lifetime of selfless service to a nation and its people. It's about his knowing who the enemy is and what to do about them. It's about his understanding that who you hang out with does matter, and that America, though flawed, should not be damned for creating a place so many want to call home."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said America's "glorious future" will come about "by the providence of the Almighty,'' but suggested that Democrats do not acknowledge the evil posed by Islamic terrorists, saying:

"Did you hear any Democrats talk last week about the threat from radical, violent Jihad? Republicans believe that there is good and evil in the world. Ronald Reagan called-out the Evil Empire. George Bush labeled the terror-sponsor states the Axis of Evil. And at Saddleback, after Barak Obama dodged and ducked every direct question, John McCain hit the nail on the head: radical violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it! Republicans prefer straight talk to politically correct talk!"

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made the same point, saying:

"For 4 days in Denver and for the past 18 months Democrats have been afraid to use the words "Islamic Terrorism." During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of September 11. They are in a state of denial about the threat that faces us now and in the future."

But Giuliani drew the biggest applause with a barb at Obama for the Democrat's comment, at a fundraiser in San Francisco in April, that working-class voters "'get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.'' Giuliani, in a line that was not in his prepared remarks, joked about criticism of vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin's small town experience, saying, "Maybe they cling to religion there.'' (The Pennsylvania delegate in the photo above is making a similar point.)

Palin, in her remarks, also took direct aim at Obama's "cling" comment, saying:

"In small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."

Palin's speech also included the most religious notes. When speaking of her son's impending deployment to Iraq, she said, "I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.'' When describing the impact of captivity in Vietnam on John McCain, the Republican nominee, she said he has the "wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God.'' And she referred again, as she did last Friday, to the importance of a "servant's heart.'' That phrase has strong evangelical overtones, which were explored by John L. Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter. Allen writes:

"The phrase 'servant’s heart' is a popular bit of Evangelical terminology, used as a short-hand for Christian humility. A quick web search reveals thousands of churches, ministries, and bands that use some variation of 'servant’s heart' in the title; there’s even a residential cleaning service in Calgary called 'Servant’s Heart.' The term is so common, in fact, that Christian comedian Tim Hawkins has poked fun at it. 'I hate it when somebody tells me I’ve got a servant’s heart,' Hawkins says. 'It means they want me to start stacking chairs.' When Palin pledged to govern with a 'servant’s heart,' Christians, especially those with an Evangelical background, had no trouble recognizing one of their own, even without the convenience of a denominational label on Palin’s résumé.

(Photo by Getty.)

I have to say that the phenomenon of holding candidates accountable for the controversial remarks of their pastors is a bit mystifying to me -- in most of the churches and synagogues with which I'm most familiar, criticizing the sermon after a worship service is practically a sporting event, and the idea that worshipers might be held accountable for the opinions of their priest, minister or rabbi seems a bit crazy.

But I suppose it's inevitable that, given the controversies over Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright and McCain endorser John Hagee, there are now a lot of people combing through the past remarks of pastors and other speakers at Sarah Palin's multiple churches, looking for anything that might reflect badly on her.

The first to weigh in was Harper's magazine, which, as I noted earlier, didn't turn up anything particularly surprising in its review of on-line sermons at the Juneau Christian Center and the Church on the Rock, two congregations where Palin has worshiped.

But other news organizations have had more luck. Politico reports that Palin was present at the Wasilla Bible Church two weeks ago when the pastor gave a warm welcome to the organization Jews for Jesus, which is viewed with great hostility by the mainstream Jewish community, and when the Jews for Jesus founder described terrorist attacks on Jews as the "judgment of unbelief."

And Mudflats, a blog about Alaskan politics, offers an item headlined, "Sarah Palin's Preacher Problem,'' which quotes Palin saying three months ago, "our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” The post quotes Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God, where Palin was a member until 2002, saying "I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say 'war mode.' Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he’s like the good shepherd, he’s loving all the time and he’s kind all the time. Oh yes he is — but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war."

But even as liberals are apoplectic about the Palin pick, evangelicals are clearly energized. The New York Times today reports on McCain's success turning around his relationship with religious conservatives. An excerpt:

To make up for a history of conflict with the Christian conservative wing of his party, Mr. McCain has in some ways gone further than Mr. Bush to reassure the right of his intentions, even at the risk of spooking more moderate voters. “I am now more confident about a John McCain presidency than I am about a George Bush presidency,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The campaign has courted conservatives aggressively, and it has turned around remarkably in just the last few weeks."

Meantime, in the new issue of the New Yorker, Peter Boyer explores the history of outreach by both parties to religious voters. The piece is dated, even before it hits the stands, because of the Palin pick, but still has some interesting reflections from Karl Rove, Douglas Kmiec, and Deal Hudson.

UPDATE: The JTA, a Jewish news service, reports that Abe Foxman, the head of the ADL, is not concerned about the Jews for Jesus appearance at Palin's church. An excerpt:

“If you could tell me that she approves of this guy, she invited him, I’m not aware of any of that...The fact that she belongs to a church that believes in it, I don’t have a problem.”

(Photo, by AP, shows Palin in Dayton on Friday.)

The evangelical Protestant community, which had been jubilant over the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, is now rallying to support her after the announcement that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol (shown at right, holding her brother), is five months pregnant. The pregnancy, on the one hand, suggests that Palin's own family has had trouble conforming to the sexual mores espoused by Christian conservatives, but, on the other hand, provides further evidence of their willingness to live out their opposition to abortion.

Christianity Today has catalogued some of the early reaction, including that of James Dobson of Focus on the Family. An excerpt:

"Being a Christian does not mean you're perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord. I've been the beneficiary of that forgiveness and restoration in my own life countless times, as I'm sure the Palins have. The media are already trying to spin this as evidence Gov. Palin is a 'hypocrite,' but all it really means is that she and her family are human."

Lesser known figures are also speaking up, and providing an early window into evangelical reaction. Randy Speck, the superintendent of the Oakland Christian School, writes in his blog:

"Politicians certainly aren’t perfect and neither are their families. I will make the assumption that when the swarm of bees comes around (the media), that it is going to be brutal on this young lady and her family. I pray that the Christian community doesn”t join in…instead, let’s practice Jesus’ teachings of loving people no matter where they find themselves and what has happened. Think about it, this family’s world was drastically changed 72 hours ago when Gov. Palin was announced as VP nominee. Now this news has been confirmed. Come on Christian community, let’s lift Bristol Palin up in prayer; pray for the health of the baby she carries; for the father making the commitment to being a dad and ost of all, let’s all be thankful for our Heavenly Father who loves us no matter what."

And at Right Truth, Debbie blogs:

"If you have ever had a teenage daughter or son, you know that you can do EVERYTHING right, and they are still going to make mistakes. Children make bad decisions, even if they have been raised in a loving home, a Christian home. But parents still love their children, they continue to support those wayward kids. Like any parent, I'm sure Sarah Palin would have chosen a different path for her daughter. But, Sarah Palin is not to be faulted for the decisions her daughter made."

But the announcement is also giving fuel to Palin skeptics. Over at the Atlantic, blogger Andrew Sullivan, an Obama supporter who writes frequently about religion and politics, is calling for the McCain campaign to release Sarah Palin's medical records to confirm that the governor is the biological mother of the Palin family baby. An excerpt:

"Now they've cleared the air on this - and good for them - what harm would it do to release the medical records showing that Sarah Palin delivered Trig on April 18 in Wasilla? This is not hard: there must be an obstetrician, medical records, and data that can easily refute this rumor. It is not out of the ordinary either: candidates routinely issue medical records. So let's have them. And then we can move on."

UPDATE: Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, comments:

"Unfortunately, teenage pregnancy has become all too common in today's society regardless of a family's economic or social status. It is problem that we remain committed to reducing through encouraging young people to practice abstinence. Fortunately, Bristol is following her mother and father's example of choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation. We are committed to praying for Bristol and her husband to be and the entire Palin family as they walk through a very private matter in the eyes of the public."

UPDATE: A bit more detail on Palin's faith life: According to the LA Times, Palin, who was born in Idaho and raised in Alaska, was baptized in the Catholic church. Palin was baptized again, in a Pentecostal church, the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, and was a member there from the time she was a teenager until 2002, according to a statement on the congregation's web site. And now, the Associated Press reports:

"She now sometimes worships at the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God, said Brad Kesler, business administrator of the denomination's Alaska District. But her home church is The Church on the Rock, an independent congregation, (Wasilla Assembly of God's founding pastor Paul) Riley said. "The church was kind of a foundation for her," said Riley, who said he gave the invocation at Palin's inauguration and had her address students at the church last month. Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said Palin attends different churches and does not consider herself Pentecostal."

Harper's magazine, in the wake of controversies over remarks made by ministers associated with Obama and McCain, has reviewed the sermons of two of Palin's pastors. Their review turns up nothing that strikes me as particularly extraordinary, but includes quotations such as this one, from David Pepper, senior pastor at Church on the Rock:

“God will not be mocked. I don’t care what the ACLU says. God will not be mocked. I don’t care what atheists say. God will not be mocked. I don’t care what’s going on in the nation today with so much horrific rebellion and sin and things that take place. God will not be mocked. Judgment Day is coming. Where do you stand?”

UPDATE: Sarah Palin seemed to be telling Eagle Forum Alaska in 2006 that she supported abstinence-only education. Her response to a candidate questionnaire:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

A: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

(Photo, by AP, shows Bristol Palin, holding her brother Trig, in Dayton last Friday.)

For those of us who follow religion and politics, one of the most interesting endorsements of the year is that of Barack Obama by Douglas W. Kmiec (right), a conservative legal scholar who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and Bush (the first one) administrations and who now is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University. Kmiec is a highly regarded Catholic academic -- he was the dean of the law school at Catholic University of America, he taught at Notre Dame, and he writes a column for the Catholic News Service. And he views abortion as an "intrinsic evil.''

Kmiec's endorsement of Obama was dramatic enough, but was made even more so when a priest publicly denied him Communion in April because of the endorsement. Now Kmiec is writing a book about his endorsement (it's called "Can a Catholic Support Him?"), and today's New York Times features a Q&A in which Kmiec answers questions from the Times's former religion writer, Peter Steinfels. An excerpt:

Q. Isn’t your support at odds with Catholic teaching?

A. Quite the contrary. Senator Obama is articulating policies that permit faithful Catholics to follow the church’s admonition that we continue to explore ways to give greater protection to human life. Consider the choices: A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion.

And another excerpt:

Q. You have been fiercely attacked by some Catholic abortion opponents and in one instance barred from receiving communion. How do you feel about that?

A. To be the subject of an angry homily at Mass last April 18 and excoriated as giving scandal for endorsing Senator Obama and then to be denied communion for that “offense” was the most humiliating experience in my faith life. To be separated in that public manner from the receipt of the eucharist, and to be effectively shunned or separated from the body of Christ in the sense of that particular congregation, has left, I very much regret to say, a permanent spiritual scar. Thankfully, it has also given me a new appreciation for the significance of the sacrament in my daily worship. And the priest, having been called to order by Cardinal Roger Mahony, sent me an apology, which of course I have accepted. Nonetheless, I remain deeply troubled that other church leaders not fall into similar traps. That would do untold damage to the church within the context of American democracy. There are clearly partisan forces that want nothing more than to manufacture or stir up faith-based opposition to their political opponents. The church has been careful to underscore that Catholics have unfettered latitude to vote for any candidate so long as the intent of the Catholic voter is not to express approval of a grave evil.

John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant with a strong record of opposition to abortion and an openness to teaching creationism in the public schools.

Palin is the mother of five children, one of whom was born with Down Syndrome. She learned that her son had Down Syndrome when she was four months pregnant, and she told the Associated Press in May that she never considered ending the pregnancy. "We've both been very vocal about being pro-life," she said in the AP interview. "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential." Palin also said of her son, whose name is Trig Paxon Van Palin, "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"

In November of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a story wrapping up the governor's race:

"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."

And in October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin said the following about creationism at a debate:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Palin identifies herself as a Christian; she headed her high school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Here's a bit more detail on her faith life from the first story in a two-part profile that ran in 2006 in the Anchorage Daily News:

"Palin's parents say they are not political and don't know how she decided to turn her ambition and work ethic toward politics. Her Christian faith, they say, came from her mother, who took her children to area Bible churches as they were growing up (Sarah is the third of four siblings). They say her faith has been steady since high school, when she led the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and grew stronger as she sought out believers in her college years. Palin doesn't brandish her religion on the campaign trail, but that doesn't prevent others from doing so. After she was first elected mayor, her predecessor, John Stein, objected that a Valley cable TV program had hailed her as Wasilla's first 'Christian mayor.' In a column for the local newspaper, he named eight previous mayors and added that he, too, was a Christian, despite a name that led some voters to suspect 'I must be a non-Christian, have non-Christian blood or at least have sympathized with a non-Christian sometime in my career.'"

(Photo by Reuters.)

Barack Obama has just completed his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president. The speech was free of sectarian religion-talk, but embraced a kind of civic religion, a faith in the promise of America, which Obama connected to his own improbable life story, and to the "I Have a Dream" speech delivered by Martin Luther King Jr. 45 years ago. An excerpt from Obama's speech:

"It is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend. That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot. And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.''

Then Obama closed with a citation from Hebrews, the New Testament book that consists of a letter from an unknown author to early Christians whose faith was flagging. Obama said, "Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess." Obama was quoting from Hebrews 10:23 -- the King James translation is "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering," while the Bible translation favored by Catholics says, "Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope." The quotation refers, of course, to the promise of Christian faith; but in tonight's speech, Obama used the quote to refer to the hope and promise of the United States.

(Photo, by AP, shows Obama delivering his acceptance speech tonight in Denver.)

Efforts by Democrats gathered in Denver to highlight their outreach to people of faith are getting mixed reviews as the convention nears an end.

The chief executive of the convention is herself a pastor. The convention began with an interfaith gathering in the Colorado Convention Center. Each night of the convention has started with an invocation and ended with a benediction. And the convention included several "faith caucus" meetings consisting of panel discussions on moral issues.

From a distance, the best coverage I've seen of the role of faith at the convention has been in the politics blog over at Christianity Today, the evangelical weekly. There's also an examination of the coverage of the interfaith event at GetReligion.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting overview from Steve Waldman, the president of Beliefnet, who writes:

"Compared to the 2004 Democratic Convention, the 2008 gathering is a veritable religious revival meeting. At the last convention, people of faith were treated as a worthwhile little interest group, roughly on the same level as mohair farmers. What a difference four years make. By my count, there are at least nine different faith-related events..I was quite ready to be cynical about all this. Democratic operatives seemed to get religion less by reading scriptures than by exit polls (though it should be said, polls are sacred texts for some politicians). But what’s actually happened here is more interesting than that."

There is criticism from the left and right. Not surprisingly, Christianity Today finds Tom Minnery, a senior vice president with Focus on the Family, dissatisfied:

"I was entirely disappointed in their supposed outreach to conservative evangelical believers. It was a fraud. There was a panel, a faith forum, how can progressives work with conservative, religious people. Not a single conservative among then nine speakers and it was tired old leftist dogma. There was absolutely no discussion about responsible fatherhood. There was not a single solution proposed that didn’t involve the government."

Less expected is the critique from Rabbi Michael Lerner, of the left-leaning Tikkun magazine, who e-mails:

"There are two possible directions for a faith caucus. A faith caucus can be, and at the moment it fully is, a cheerleading squad for the Democrats, bringing to the churches, synagogues, mosques and ashrams 'the good news' that the Democrats policies miraculously happen to coincide with the message of our holy scriptures, and on top of that, that they intend to expand funding of local religious communities as long as the specific programs funded operate within the bounds of separation of church and state. The other direction is to be a prophetic voice within the political party, bringing to the attention of the leaders the voices of the most downtrodden, demanding that the party live up to its own principles and that it move beyond the rhetoric of peace and justice to really embody that...People of faith really failed him (Obama) and the Democrats when they spent so much time praising and so little time asking Obama and the Democrats to realize that in the 21st century taking spiritual values seriously in politics requires looking at the spec in one's own eyes-- and it is that kind of help that makes the absence of prophetic critique in the Faith Caucus not only ethically disappointing but substantively a betrayal of the best interests of the Democrats and of the Obama candidacy."

I've been interested to note how little specific religious language is used in the main speeches. Last night, Joe Biden did not mention his Catholicism, but he told an interesting, if theologically confusing, anecdote that attempts to connect Christian faith to more general life lessons. This is the anecdote, about lessons from Biden's mother:

"When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, she sent me back out and demanded that I bloody their nose so I could walk down that street the next day. After the accident, she told me, “Joey, God sends no cross you cannot bear.” And when I triumphed, she was quick to remind me it was because of others. My mother’s creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. You are everyone’s equal, and everyone is equal to you. My parents taught us to live our faith, and treasure our family. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they try."

Tonight, of course, is the big night, and it will be interesting to see how explicitly Barack Obama talks about the complex role of religion in his own journey, and about how directly he addresses voters for whom religion is a central concern.

(Photo, by AFP, shows Democratic National Committee Convention CEO Leah D. Daughtry speaking during the Democratic National Convention Interfaith Gathering last Sunday.)

In an unusual move, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops today issued a statement criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent comments about abortion. Pelosi is herself a Roman Catholic, the mother of five children, and a supporter of abortion rights. And her comments came just a day after Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama selected another abortion-rights supporting Catholic, Sen. Joseph Biden, as his running mate.

Pelosi made her abortion comments on Sunday, in an interview on "Meet the Press." The exchange started when the interviewer, Tom Brokaw, asked Pelosi when life begins:

Pelosi: "I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided..."

Brokaw: "The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...begins at the point of conception.

Pelosi: "I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.''

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops today issued a statement attributed to Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine:

"In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, 'Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.' In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development. These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life."

UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, e-mails the following statement in response to the bishops:

“The Speaker is the mother of five children and seven grandchildren and fully appreciates the sanctity of family. She was raised in a devout Catholic family who often disagreed with her pro-choice views. After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22) While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The Speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs. The Speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.”

And Jon O'Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice, is, not surprisingly, defending Pelosi:

“In their response to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the US bishops commented on their interpretation of what Speaker Pelosi said, not what she actually said. Speaker Pelosi was correct in noting that Catholic teaching has changed over the years, even on the issue of when life begins. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops used the occasion to bang the drum on their issue sine qua non in American politics: abortion. In doing so, the bishops ignored many relevant issues, including the importance of conscience, what Catholics themselves actually believe, and the role of religion in politics...The bishops are not on the same page as Catholics when it comes to deciding what the important issues in the next election are. Fortunately for Americans of every faith group and no faith group, Catholics in public life, such as Speaker Pelosi, inform their actions by their faith, their conscience, and the voices of their constituents, focusing on what is best for all Americans, not just the dictates of Catholic bishops.”

(Photo, by Bloomberg, shows Pelosi at the Democratic National Convention in Denver Monday night.)

Barack Obama's chosen running mate, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, is a Roman Catholic who would become, if elected, the first Catholic vice-president of the U.S. Like many Catholic elected officials in the US, he runs afoul of church teachings on abortion rights, but cites church teachings on a variety of social justice concerns. His selection is likely to rekindle the debate over whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should receive Communion.

Last year, when Biden himself was running for president, the Christian Science Monitor took an in-depth look at the role Catholicism plays in Biden's life. The story quotes Monsignor William Kerr, executive director of the Claude Pepper Center at Florida State University, saying "Joe Biden is one of the most sincere Catholics I've known in my 40 years as a priest." An excerpt:

"'The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power,' he (Biden) said in an interview with the Monitor. 'It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse.' The issues that have most engaged Biden in public life draw on those teachings, from halting violence against women to genocide. At a personal level, his faith provides him peace, he says. 'I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone,' he says."

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has posted a religious biography of Biden, which notes that Biden attended Catholic school, considered becoming a priest, attends a parish in Wilmington, Delaware, met with Pope John Paul II four times and attended his funeral.

According to Project Vote Smart, Biden voted with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent of the time in 2006. He differs from the Catholic Church's leaders in other areas as well -- he initially supported the Iraq War (although he has since become a critic), he opposes a federal ban on same-sex marriage (although in 1996 he supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act), he supports the death penalty and he has supported embryonic stem cell research.

But many Catholics, and many Catholic politicians, share Biden's positions, and the Obama campaign is clearly hoping that Biden's passion for his faith and his working-class roots will help woo Catholic voters, who are now evenly divided between Obama and McCain.

Criticism from conservative Catholics is already coming; Fidelis, a Chicago-based group, today issued a statement declaring:

“Now everywhere Biden campaigns, we’ll have this question of whether a pro-abortion Catholic can receive Communion. Senator Biden is an unrepentant supporter of abortion in direct opposition to the Church he claims as his own. Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters.”

But, on the other side of the political spectrum, Catholics United today issued its own statement:

“Senator Biden’s well-known commitment to his Catholic faith has inspired his advocacy on issues such as genocide, universal health care, education, workers’ rights, and violence against women. His faith has helped him to find solace during times of tragedy and crisis. We are optimistic that Senator Biden’s history of seeking practical means of addressing abortion will help move our nation beyond the divisive, acrimonious, and unproductive debate that has come to surround the issue. Senator Biden accepts his church’s teachings on human life and can work to advance these teachings in ways that Americans of all political persuasions can support. Catholics United is especially hopeful that operatives on the far right will refrain from using Senator Biden’s faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church as political weapons in the coming campaign. Faith and values should be used to unite Americans behind solutions to the key challenges of this age – war, poverty, lack of health care, and a looming climate crisis – and not as partisan wedges to divide voters.”

UPDATE: James Salt, organizing director of Catholics United, e-mails to say "Biden has always opposed public financing of abortion and late term abortion and...in 2003, NARAL gave him a 36% voting record. For a Catholic Democrat, these are two pretty important positions that go against the grain of his party and point to the influence of Biden’s Catholic faith on his politics."

UPDATE: Catholic Democrats, a Boston-based organization, also weighs in; Dr. Patrick Whelan, the organization's president, says Biden "has lived out the tenets of his Catholic faith throughout his career -- speaking out tirelessly on behalf of the poor and the exploited, encouraging peace and reconstruction in the most despairing corners of the world, and promoting personal responsibility here in the US. He is a public servant who truly believes in the common good."

(Photo, by AP, shows Sens. Biden and Obama on Capitol Hill on April 8, 2008.)

Conservatives are increasingly leery of the role of religion in U.S. politics, joining liberals and moderates in forming a narrow majority of Americans who want churches to stay out of politics.

That is among the key findings of the annual summer survey on religion and politics released yesterday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Some excerpts from the Pew announcement:

"Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view. The new survey finds that conservatives’ views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared."

"There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are – from 40% to 46%. While the Republican Party is most often seen as the party friendly toward religion, the Democratic Party has made gains in this area. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago. Nevertheless, considerably more people (52%) continue to view the GOP as friendly toward religion."

"Similarly, the survey finds increasing numbers of Americans believing that religiously defined ideological groups have too much control over the parties themselves. Nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007. At the same time, more people say that liberals who are not religious have too much sway over the Democrats than did so last year (43% today vs. 37% then)."

The survey finds McCain leading Obama among conservatives and white evangelicals, while Catholics are evenly split. Full results here.

The McCain campaign is reacting angrily to a debate raging in the blogosphere about whether the GOP presidential candidate could have embellished or even appropriated his oft-told anecdote about connecting with one of his hostage-taker guards in Vietnam over their shared Christian faith. A McCain spokesman has now posted quotes from two of the candidate's fellow POWs who, the campaign says, have confirmed that McCain told them long ago that the guard drew a cross in the dirt as a sign of Christian solidarity.

McCain told the story most recently on Saturday night, at the Saddleback Civil Forum hosted by Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Life fame:

"The Vietnamese kept us in prison in conditions of solitary confinement, or two or three to a cell. They did that because they knew they could break down our resistance. One of the techniques that they used to get information was to take ropes and tie them around your biceps, loop the rope around your head and pull it down beneath your knees and leave you in that position. You can imagine it's very uncomfortable. One night, I was being punished in that fashion. All of sudden the door of the cell opened and the guard came in. The guy who was just -- what we call the gun guard -- just walked around the camp with the gun on his shoulder. He went like this and loosened the ropes. He came back about four hours later and tightened them up again and left. The following Christmas, because it was Christmas day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes. In those days we were not allowed to see or communicate with each other, although we certainly did. And I was standing outside, for my few minutes outside at my cell. He came walking up. He stood there for a minute, and with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross and he stood there. And a minute later, he rubbed it out, and walked away. For a minute there, there was just two Christians worshipping together. I'll never forget that moment."

A moving anecdote, and, as it happens, politically useful for a candidate eager to demonstrate his Christian credentials. And McCain told the story almost exactly the same way in his book, "Faith of My Fathers,'' published in 1999, when he was first running for president, about a guard who had periodically loosened his ropes approaching him one Christmas. This is what McCain wrote then:

"He walked up and stood silently next to me. Again, he didn't smile or look at me. He just stared at the ground in front of us. After a few moments had passed he rather nonchalantly used his sandaled foot to draw a cross in the dirt. We both stood wordlessly looking at the cross until, after a minute or two, he rubbed it out and walked away. I saw my good Samaritan often after the Christmas when we venerated the cross together. But he never said a word to me nor gave the slightest signal that he acknowledged my humanity.''

But over the last few days there has been increasing skepticism about the anecdote in the blogosphere, particularly among writers critical of McCain, fueled by a lack of evidence that McCain ever publicly told the story before 1999.

The flap seems to have begun over at the Daily Kos, where blogger rickrocket wrote that the anecdote "sounded so fake and so contrived" and intimated that it could have been lifted from Solzhenitsyn, who supposedly told a similar story from his days in the gulag. Talking Points Memo finds a Solzhenitsyn scholar who has actually read "The Gulag Archipelago" and says Solzhenitsyn never told the cross story. But, whether or not Solzhenitsyn ever said it, it was subsequently attributed to him by evangelicals, including Chuck Colson.

Blogger hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, is among the skeptics, saying that McCain did not tell the cross-in-the-dirt story either in 1973, when he wrote about his captivity, or in 1995, when he spoke to an author about his Christmases in captivity. And Andrew Sullivan, an Obama enthusiast, has been hammering away at the issue for several days, writing:

"No one is disputing in any way what McCain did in Vietnam, his heroism, his sacrifice or any jot and tittle of his combat in arms and time in captivity. What we're curious about is how an urban legend in Christianist circles (attributed to Solzhenitsen but originating, so far as one can tell, in Chuck Colson) reshaped and altered an actual, utterly believable story of rare humanity in a prison camp. And how a campaign not only adopted the improved story but then wielded it in a campaign ad and as a critical message to evangelicals. If that ad is not actually true - and its depiction of the cross in the dirt we know is false (according to McCain, it was done with a sandal; in the ad it is done, as in Colson's account, with a stick) - it's a question of challenging a campaign's veracity, and what can only be called a cynical use of religion."

The McCain campaign, which maintains a blog called the McCain Report on which it has been responding to attacks, has produced what it says are confirmatory recollections from two of McCain's fellow POWs, here and here. The McCain campaign's Michael Goldfarb writes:

"It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others. John McCain has often said he witnessed a thousand acts of bravery while he was imprisoned, and though not every one has been submitted into the public record, they are remembered by the men who were there.''

I called Goldfarb to ask about the dispute, and he said, "The bottom line in all this is that McCain’s fellow POWs are saying they heard it from him at the time. People can say that all these people are liars, and there’s nothing we can do about it -- we don’t have a video of this incident. But these guys corroborated it, McCain has credibility, and we don’t feel the need to defend this kind of stuff.''

In today's Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. argues that last weekend's Rick Warren-hosted interviews of Barack Obama and John McCain are evidence of a real shift in evangelical politics. He writes:

"Anyone who still doubts that the evangelical Christian world is going through a political revolution was not watching Pastor Rick Warren's presidential forum this weekend. The era of reducing Christianity to a narrow set of ideological commitments is over. Just a few years ago, who would have imagined that Barack Obama and John McCain would hold a discussion of this sort in a church? Who would have thought that the session would be moderated by an evangelical pastor who was emphatic in counting both the Democrat and the Republican as his 'friends'? Who would have predicted that in such a setting, the issues of abortion and gay marriage would not dominate the pastor's queries?"

The former governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson (right), a Republican who has butted heads with religious conservatives in the past, is urging John McCain not to use religious affiliation as a criterion in selecting a running-mate. This, of course, is an issue because some evangelicals are uncomfortable with Mormonism, the faith of one possible Republican vice-presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In the (St. Paul) Pioneer Press, Bill Salisbury reports:

"In a letter to McCain dated Saturday, Carlson said he is offended that some Republicans are demanding that McCain rule out some potential vice-presidential candidates because of their religious beliefs. He didn't mention Mitt Romney by name, but he implied that the former Massachusetts governor should not be eliminated from consideration just because he is a Mormon. Some evangelicals oppose Romney because of his religious faith. 'If a Mormon cannot be considered today for high office, who will be eliminated from the same consideration tomorrow?' Carlson asked. 'If a segment of a broad religion can impose its religious criteria on a presidential candidate and the Republican Party, then what other challenges to the Constitution can they make?'"

Carlson was governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999.

(Image at right is Carlson's official portrait, in a University of Minnesota sweatshirt, from the Minnesota Historical Society.)

If anyone had any doubt about the influence of Rick Warren, last night provided a remarkable demonstration of his pull -- Barack Obama and John McCain both agreed to submit, one after the other, to televised questions from the evangelical pastor at his church in Orange County, California.

Warren, of course, is the author of "The Purpose Driven Life," which, after selling 25 million copies, is now reportedly the best-selling hardback book ever. Saddleback Church, which Warren founded in 1980 with one family, now has 22,000 people at worship each week. Warren has become ubiquitous -- even in Boston, he has spoken at Harvard and was this year's commencement speaker at Gordon College -- and his words have been printed on Starbucks cups. And he has become the best-known advocate of a new set of public policy priorities for evangelicals in the public square -- yes, he opposes same-sex marriage and abortion, but his public focus has been on AIDS in Africa, and he has devoted considerable energy to training pastors in the developing world.

The Saddleback Civil Forum, as Warren dubbed last night's event, featured Warren interviewing Obama, and then McCain, for an hour each, before an audience of 2,200. The candidates, in their first joint appearance since becoming the likely nominees of the two major political parties, appeared on the stage together for a few seconds, and shook hands.

Warren asked the candidates about marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, and what Christianity means to them. Obama's answer, according to a partial transcript from Warren:

"It means I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through Him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. I know that I don't walk alone. But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but also through deeds and expectations that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these - acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God."

And McCain's response:

"It means I am saved and forgiven."

(I just realized this morning that Rick Warren is now apparently running his own news service, so for all the Rick Warren news you need, provided by Rick Warren, about Rick Warren, check out this site. I was trying to think about whether there are any other religious leaders who communicate about their own activities in this way; the only parallels that come to mind are denominational heads, like Pope Benedict XVI or Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who have news departments that chronicle their appearances and utterances.)

There's lots of coverage of the Saddleback event in today's papers; the Globe's story, by Sasha Issenberg, is here.

But there is also some critical comment now emerging about Warren's role in the campaign.

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, who is now a senior fellow at Georgetown's Woodstock Theological Center, sent out an e-mail yesterday wondering what would happen if a Catholic figure attempted such a feat.

"Before the forum takes place, let me say how weird the whole event appears to me as a Catholic priest. First, my understanding is that the forum will take place in the sanctuary of the Saddleback Church. I think that is inappropriate. A church hall would be OK but not the sanctuary which should be reserved for worship service. This is not a question of separation of church and state--I leave that to the constitutional lawyers. This is a question of what is religiously appropriate and inappropriate to do in churches. Catholics appear to have a very different standard than Evangelicals (both white and black). The Vatican is even opposed to holding concerts in churches. Second, imagine for a second that the forum was being sponsored by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago and was held in the sanctuary of his cathedral. The outcry would be defining. The public and the media appear more easily to accept political activity by Evangelical clergy than by Catholic clergy. Catholic clergy are held to a higher standard. For example, Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson can run for president, but imagine what would happen if Cardinal George or Cardinal Egan ran for president. Don't get me wrong. I do not want Catholic cardinals or clergy publicly getting involved in partisan politics. I am happy that canon law and tradition restrict political activity by Catholic clergy. I just wonder if there is a double standard here."

And, the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of Interfaith Alliance and a frequent critic of the role of faith in politics today, praised Warren, but said:

"Some of the questions Pastor Warren posed crossed the line and promoted the fiction that the American people are electing a pastor-in-chief, rather than a commander-in-chief. Questions like 'What does it mean to trust in Christ?' create a religious test for public office and should have no place in the political discourse for a secular office. America is the most religiously diverse country in the world, and Christianity is only one of those faith traditions. Millions of voters who tuned in tonight will feel disenfranchised by some of the questions posed in this forum. And both the candidates deserve criticism for engaging in a competition to be 'holier than thou.' The American people want real solutions for real issues. Discussing the personal theology of the candidates does little to elucidate those solutions."

(Photo by Getty.)

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has posted a video discussion about faith and politics with Burns Strider, who handled faith outreach for Hillary Clinton, and Mark DeMoss, who advised former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The two were interviewed by John C. Green, a professor at the University of Akron, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, and one of the nation's leading scholars on the relationship between religious affiliation and voting behavior.

One interesting exchange comes when the two are asked to describe challenges they faced. Here is Strider, talking about Clinton:

"As many of us know, over the past 15, 20 years, polling has always indicated a pretty low number of people who would say that Hillary Clinton is a woman of faith, personal faith. So you come in with that challenge 16 months ago when this began. So what I had to work with was kind of this gulf between what was the reality and what was the perception because in reality you had this really active United Methodist who had spent her life active in the church."

And DeMoss, on Romney:

"In Mitt Romney’s case, the important thing was not to reach out on religious terms, but to reach out on values terms. I’ve often said that as an evangelical Southern Baptist, in terms of values, I have more in common with most Mormons than I would with a liberal Southern Baptist or a liberal Methodist or an Episcopalian or you name it."

The full transcript is on the Pew site; a clip is below.

President Bush, in Beijing to attend the Olympics, this morning worshiped in an official, government-authorized, Protestant church, to the dismay of religious freedom advocates, who wanted him to do more to criticize the Chinese government's restrictions on Christianity. The president's statement upon emerging from the service, as transcribed by the White House:

"You know, I've just -- Laura and I just had the great joy and privilege of worshiping here in Beijing, China. You know, it just goes to show that God is universal, and God is love, and no state, man or woman should fear the influence of loving religion. And I want to thank the pastor for his hospitality. And I want to thank this beautiful choir for singing Amazing Grace and Edelweiss. It was a touching moment. It's been a joy to worship here. Again, I want to thank you, sir, and God bless you. God bless you."

Bush briefly addressed the religious freedom issue in Thailand Thursday, saying:

"I have spoken clearly and candidly and consistently with China's leaders about our deep concerns over religious freedom and human rights. I have met repeatedly with Chinese dissidents and religious believers. The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings. So America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists."

And today, after attending worship, he raised the issue again with Chinese President Hu Jintao, saying "As you know, I feel very strongly about religion,'' according to AP. And Reuters reports that Dennis Wilder, a White House National Security Council official who briefed reporters after the meeting, said, "President Hu seemed to indicate that the door is open to religious freedom in China and that in the future there will be more room for religious believers."

Today's Washington Post takes a look at religious freedom in China with a story by Maureen Fan, who reports:

"Religious freedom does not extend beyond the heavily secured perimeter fence of the Olympic Green. In this Olympic year, government officials have sharply tightened restrictions on religion, arresting leaders of unregistered "house churches," stepping up harassment of congregations, denying visas to foreign missionaries and shutting down places of worship, church members and religious activists said."

(Photo, by AFP, shows President Bush speaking after attending worship today at Beijing Kuanjie Protestant Christian Church.)

A McCain campaign spot called "The One" (above) is causing a bit of a stir among the faith-and-politics crowd, as some argue that the advertisement intimates that Obama is the Antichrist, who is supposed to reign just before the Last Judgment.

The Wall Street Journal says:

"Critiques of the ad started surfacing earlier this week when Eric Sapp, a Democratic operative, circulated the first of two memos pointing out images that he believed linked Sen. Obama to the antichrist. 'Short of 666, they used every single symbol of the antichrist in this ad,' said Mr. Sapp, who advises Democrats on reaching out to faith communities. 'There are way too many things to just be coincidence.'"

Time magazine reports:

"It's not hard to see how some Obama haters might be tempted to make the comparison. In the Left Behind books, Carpathia is a junior Senator who speaks several languages, is beloved by people around the world and fawned over by a press corps that cannot see his evil nature, and rises to absurd prominence after delivering just one major speech. Hmmh. But serious Antichrist theorists don't stop there. Everything from Obama's left-handedness to his positive rhetoric to his appearance on the cover of this magazine has been cited as evidence of his true identity. One chain e-mail claims that the Antichrist was prophesied to be 'A man in his 40s of MUSLIM descent,' which would indeed sound ominous if not for the fact that the Book of Revelation was written at least 400 years before the birth of Islam."

And in the Globe, Foon Rhee writes:

"For the last few months, there have been viral e-mails that compare Obama to Nimrod, whom some evangelicals believe was the first evil king of world history and who is black in some accounts, said James Tabor, chairman of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. While the Obama-as-antichrist accusation is on the fringes now and not seriously mentioned from the pulpit, Tabor said, 'I think that could come.'....And, he noted, another biblical prophecy is that the antichrist gets wounded, and a disturbed believer could try to fulfill that prophecy. A man has been charged in Florida for threatening to assassinate Obama, who requested and received Secret Service protection last year at the earliest point for any presidential candidate after his campaign received hate mail. 'This stuff is very, very dangerous,' Tabor said."

UPDATE: Globe columnist James Carroll weighs in on the ad, focusing on a comparison between Obama and Moses.

My head is spinning. Christianity Today, the evangelical magazine, has enlisted Chuck Colson, who went to prison as part of a corrupt U.S. administration, to write a reflection upon the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who went to prison for his critique of an oppressive Soviet regime. The result is intriguing -- Colson finds in Solzhenitsyn a soulmate of sorts, and, in particular, finds in Solzhenitsyn's 1978 Harvard commencement address a warning of the sort of social ills that Colson, now a prominent evangelical, also abhors. An excerpt from the Christianity Today piece:

"Thirty years ago this summer, a 59-year-old bearded dissident, whose writings helped expose and eventually bring down Soviet tyranny, stood facing rows of robed faculty and graduates at Harvard's historic Yard for its 327th commencement. Expectations ran high. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was admired for his literary achievements and lionized by the faculty, if not for his outspoken views on Communism, at least for the fact that he was an oppressed intellectual. Solzhenitsyn delivered each line in his high-pitched voice in Russian. The translation blunted the impact somewhat—in fact, there were even sporadic bursts of applause. But soon enough, outraged professors realized that Solzhenitsyn was charging them with complicity in the West's surrender to liberal secularism, the abandonment of its Christian heritage, and with all the moral horrors that followed."

Colson is a Boston native and former aide to Sen. Leverett Saltonstall, R-Mass., who went on to serve as Nixon's chief counsel and was imprisoned in 1974 for Watergate-related crimes. After his release, he founded Prison Fellowship, and he has become a leading evangelical voice in the U.S.

Solzhenitsyn, who died Sunday, was a Nobel Prize-winning Russian novelist who was imprisoned for his critique of Stalin and then exiled (a portion of which he spent in Vermont) upon the publication of "The Gulag Archipelago,'' which described Soviet prison and labor camps.

Colson's piece, which was written with Anne Morse, piqued my curiosity about how the Harvard speech was understood at the time, so I asked the Globe's library to pull up our coverage from 30 years ago. The speech was clearly a big deal -- an image of the front page is at left. And the speech was clearly understood much as Colson describes; the Globe's headline was "Solzhenitsyn, at Harvard, laments West's darker side,'' and the lead paragraph, written by reporter William Hamilton, says, "In his first major statement since taking up residence in the United States nearly two years ago, Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn yesterday described his new home in angry terms as a materialistic, cowardly society that has lost its spiritual direction."

Colson goes further, comparing Solzhenitsyn to the prophet Jeremiah, and suggesting that the acceptance of same-sex marriage in parts of the U.S. and the declining popular support for the Iraq War are manifestations of the moral decay Solzhenitsyn foresaw at Harvard thirty years ago. That conclusion, of course, is sure to be contested; I suppose that with Solzhenitsyn gone, the debate over his legacy begins.

UPDATE: An e-mail from Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today: "Nice post. A bit of oddness is that the piece was written about a month before Solzhenitsyn’s death and is in the issue that’s now at the printer.'' Impressive timing.

(Photo above, by UPI, shows Solzhenitsyn at Harvard on June 8, 1978.)

The New York Times reports that President Bush wanted to worship in a house church while visiting China, but was barred by the government, and instead will pray at a government-approved congregation:

"While he evidently will not worship at an underground church, Mr. Bush does plan to attend services on Sunday at the Beijing Kuanjie Protestant Church, one of the most prominent of those officially registered by the government. (And then, that night, he will watch Kobe Bryant and the rest of USA Basketball play China.) Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, who was among a group of advocates who met with Mr. Hadley last week to discuss China, said the problem with the balance Mr. Bush was striving for was that it too readily accepted the Chinese authorities’ conditions. Referring to the decision to visit an authorized church, he said: 'It’s not an affirmation of religious freedom. It’s an affirmation of government-controlled religion.'"

China is considered a "country of particular concern,'' for "ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom,'' by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. But it has also been an area of enormous church growth in recent years, and many Christian denominations view China as the next big prospect for evangelism.

(Photo above, by AP, shows President Bush, with his daughter, Barbara, and wife, Laura, arriving in Seoul this morning.)

In today's Spiritual Life column in the Globe, Rich Barlow profiles Donna La Rue of Arlington, a reenactor who, as "Mistress Elizabeth" of 1773 is giving tours of "Cambridge Churches as Agents of Change."

(Photo above by Essdras Suarez of the Globe staff.)

The Washington Post reports on a proposed regulation that would deny federal funding to health-care facilities that do not accommodate workers who object to providing abortion and birth-control services:

"Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant. But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women's health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control."

The New York Times previously took a look at the proposed policy.

Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement earlier this month defending what he called "conscience protection:"

“Patients with pro-life convictions, including women who require a physician’s care for themselves and their unborn children during pregnancy, deserve ‘access’ to health care professionals who do not have contempt for their religious and moral convictions or for the lives of their children.”

FULL ENTRY

The Somerville Divestment Project, which has lost numerous battles to force the city to get involved in the Middle East conflict, has a new strategy, the Somerville News reports:

"The polarizing group that has brought hundreds to City Hall to protest and support Israeli policies in the Middle East, is pushing another non-binding ballot question to city voters in November. The resolution would direct State Rep. Denise Provost, D-Somerville, to 'vote in favor of a non-binding resolution calling on the federal government to support the right of all people, including non-Jewish Palestinians of Israel, to live free from laws that give more rights to people of one religion than another.'"

(Hat tip: Adam Gaffin)

The Christian Science Monitor today looks at that conference on Christian-Muslim relations at Yale -- the one at which Sen. John F. Kerry spoke last night. An excerpt from the story, written by Monitor religion reporter Jane Lampman:

"Those involved see the initiatives, if sustained, as breaking down misperceptions, strengthening mainstream religious voices on the world stage, and diminishing the influence of extremism."

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry tonight at Yale is to give a major speech on interfaith dialogue in which he will suggest that the future of humanity depends on a greater understanding between religions.

"We’ve barely broken the seal on the 21st century, but already it’s been marked not just by burning buildings and occupying armies and riots and roiling images of bloodshed and humiliation, but also by an even more widespread and dangerous worry—by a question you hear whispered and spoken quietly: What if we can’t live together?,'' Kerry says in remarks prepared for delivery at a Christian-Muslim conference organized by Yale Divinity School.

The conference, with about 150 attendees, was prompted by "A Common Word," an important statement issued last year by Muslim theologians and clerics about Christian-Muslim relations.

Kerry, reflecting on his Puritan ancestors as well as his Catholic upbringing, makes a plea for coexistence, if not agreement, between faiths, saying, “Somehow, we have to find a way to agree that faith may be worth dying for, but it cannot be worth killing for. We have to strive for a global ethic that allows each of our religious faiths to express themselves fully but also allows us to unite around common ethical ground.”

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who narrowly lost the presidential race in 2004, says that many Americans, including politicians, know too little about Islam. And he connects that lack of knowledge to America's decision to go to war against Iraq.

“My pride in America’s successes is tempered by knowing that we are a long way from mutual understanding with the Muslim world today,’’ he says. “…We have major politicians who couldn’t tell you the difference between Shi’a and Sunni— so it’s no wonder that we attack a secular dictator in response to radical fundamentalist terrorists.”

And Kerry argues that religion is often exploited for political purposes.

“Extremism and violent sectarianism often represent a human attempt to capitalize on the failures of governance and civil society,’’ he says. “This applies to failed states like Afghanistan, where in the 1990s the Taliban arose to fill a chaotic vacuum, but also to many other places where the state, the society, and the religious order don’t do enough to remedy unfairness, lack of education, or social alienation. I don’t just mean a place like Sadr City in Baghdad— this is true of Cairo or even the desolate immigrant suburbs around Paris. People exploit religion to drive a wedge and gain a foothold—and failed states, failed civil societies, and frankly corruption in governance empower them to do so.”

The full text of Kerry's remarks, as prepared for delivery (he might vary slightly in the spoken version) are posted below (if you don't see them now, click on "full entry.") And we've just enabled comments on this blog, so if you have thoughts, please post them; please be patient if they don't appear immediately -- I still have to figure out how this feature works.

(Photo by Getty, taken on Capitol Hill July 9.)

FULL ENTRY

The blogosphere is abuzz over the ethics of the yeshiva student who removed Barack Obama's note from the Western Wall and the newspaper, Maariv, that published it:

"Lord -- Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

I remember visiting the wall as a teenager, and I certainly recall a presumption of privacy that attaches to the scribbled prayers crammed into the crevices between the stones, which reportedly are periodically removed and buried. But Obama is as public as public gets, and I must say that, to me, his prayer reads like, if it was not constructed for public consumption, it certainly posed no risk to the candidate if it did become public.

And, as some people seem to argue that the prayers at the wall are always top-secret, I also can't help but recall Pope John Paul II's dramatic visit to the Western Wall in 2000. The pontiff, too, had a private moment, in full public view, at the wall, and wrote a note that he placed between the stones. His note, apparently at his request, was removed and given to Yad Vashem for preservation; its text immediately became public:

"God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. We ask this through Christ our Lord."

But I'm eager to know your thoughts; send them along, and if enough of you speak up, I'll post them.

Yesterday morning, having attended an event sponsored by the Jewish Organizing Initiative the previous evening, I wondered aloud about the newness and the effectiveness of all the faith-based social justice organizing that I'm seeing and hearing about in Judaism and several Christian denominations, particularly among young people.

A few of your comments:

from Rabbi Jonah Pesner, the director of the Just Congregations program for the Union for Reform Judaism:

"You wondered whether there was a trend, and asked how effective faith-based organizing efforts are at making change. I would pose the question to the several hundred thousand residents of Massachusetts who now have quality, affordable health care access. It has been widely noted, by leaders like Speaker Sal Di Masi, and former Health Care for All chief, John McDonough that a critical component of this tremendous victory of Massachusetts health reform was the hard work of thousands of members of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization. Through their churches and synagogues, leaders held house meetings, collected tens of thousands of signatures, spoke to the press, and regularly met with legislators. Governors Romney and Patrick as well as Speaker Di Masi attended gatherings attended by thousands of GBIO leaders, and responded to our call for health reform. Over the last ten years, ordinary folks from Roxbury to West Newton, and Lexington to South Boston have joined together in their churches, temples, and other institutions as GBIO. We have brought our collective power to achieve other victories, like more text books in Boston Schools, the passage of the 100 million dollar affordable housing trust fund, which has grown to 250 million dollars and reform in the nursing care industry. For decades on a national level, synagogues, churches, mosques and other religious institutions have joined together through broad-based organizations and had major impact on the passage of living wage laws, construction of tens of thousands of units of affordable housing, reforms in the health care system, and myriad other local campaigns. I am proud of the strong role of the Jewish community in GBIO, and increasingly in broad-based organizing across the country. I have seen first hand how effective we can be as we put our faith in action."

from Margaret Frisch Klein:

"I was intrigued by your blog post and your attendance at the graduation of the young Jews working on social justice issues. I am a fifth year rabbinical student (my final year!) at the Academy for Jewish Religion in New York, largely due to my commitment to social justice. I would have loved a program such as you describe in your blog when I was just out of college. Other Jewish organizations for you to be aware of is Panim based in Washington, DC, and founded by Rabbi Sid Schwarz, Jewish Funds for Justice in New York--check out Rabbi Jill Jacobs and American Jewish World Service run by Ruth Messinger. Finally the Reform Movement has its Religious Action Center, also in DC that has inspired generations of Jews to work for social change--including me and my daughter. I have worked with many of my interfaith clergy on a variety of issues--health care, jobs, housing, schools and more. I have cherished working with organizations like the Merrimack Valley Project (which was actually founded on my dining room table) have brought people of all sorts to improve quality of life and the Greater Lowell Interfaith Leadership Alliance which has hosted summer camps and summer pools in Lowell as part of our mission of being moral leadership, promoting interfaith dialog and being a source of mutual support. So you can see--this is really not a new phenomena.''

from Frances (Cookie) Avrin:

"I just read Young, Religious and Agitating. There is so much going on! My daughter, who was raised in Brookline discovered on-line in her senior year of college, Avodah (you can Google it) a one year Jewish social service corps currently in Brooklyn (where it started) D.C. and Chicago. She was in the 1st group in Chicago last year (after she graduated from college). It has a 3-pronged emphasis -- learning about Jewish commitment to social justice, learning about living together, as a community, on AmeriCorps wages and have a placement in an organization that works on issues of poverty/social justice. My daughter was placed in an incredibly dynamic 10 year old youth development program (Umoja Development Corp.- a major player in the youth development world in Chicago and beyond) in an Chicago low-income public high school on the West Side. The second year (this year) she was hired as staff for Umoja. It has been a transforming experience. Also, she has met other young adults from other religious volunteer group who do terrific social justice work (Catholic Volunteer Corps; Lutheran Volunteer Corps). All of this, however, is in Chicago. Just thought I'd let you know. We are not a religious family but believe this value based (for many -religious-based) progressive social service work is worthy for so many reasons.''

and from Molly Zeff, one of this year's JOI fellows:

"Thank you for your blog about JOI, an organization that has completely changed my life. And yes, I believe it is part of a trend--a trend of young people making change and building community at the same time. Kavod House, the National Havurah Institute, numerous independent minyanim (services) in NY, DC, Boston, and elsewhere, the growing network of Moishe Houses all over (of which Kavod House is a part), the Workmen's Circle's young crowd here in Boston...need I go on? We're young, we're enthusiastic, we've got tons of energy and more time than people with kids and a mortgage, and we're interested in building and have already built communities and political power. We are in our twenties and early thirties, we're moving beyond denominations in Judaism to build bridges across observance levels, and we're already creating a proven track record of taking a stand and making change. This is religion at its best and as it should be: a force for power and a source of strength and friendship."

.

Today in GlobeSouth: a look at a Marshfield cantor's rock band and the world of contemporary Jewish music.

Also, the controversy over the women's ordination issue, which generated a ton of e-mail that I posted here and here, is now generating letters to the editor here and here.

From Jerusalem, where the Globe's Sasha Issenberg travelled with Barack Obama, a report on some criticism from Jewish religious organizations of Obama's position on Jerusalem.

And, for those of you who like a little fiction mixed with your Catholicism, the Globe's travel section explored the Rome of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. This isn't mentioned in the travel story, but longtime readers will recall that the church that is the site of one of the most gruesome murders in Angels and Demons is now Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley's titular church in Rome. The film crew was barred from shooting inside the church, but O'Malley's spokesman told me the cardinal had nothing to do with that decision, which apparently was made by the diocese of Rome.

Last night I attended the graduation ceremony for a group called the Jewish Organizing Initiative, which, as its name suggests, trains young Jews in community organizing skills. The program is a fellowship for folks in their 20s, who spend a year interning with social change advocacy organizations, and attending regular workshops with one another to discuss both the secular and religious components of social justice activism.

A good friend of mine, Adam Rogoff, is the chairman of the JOI board, and he wanted me to see what the program was all about. The evening ceremony, held in the downtown boardroom of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, offered a chance for the fellows to reflect a bit on their experience doing something many of them called "agitating.'' They had spent the year working with a variety of community groups, including Rosie's Place, the shelter for homeless women, Health Care for All, which pushes health care reform, and Unite Here Local 26, a labor union for hotel workers. The students seemed genuinely moved by how much they had to push themselves, or be pushed by their mentors, to help members of struggling communities emerge as leaders in various battles on their own behalf.

Social justice movements don't get a ton of attention in the broader culture these days -- one of the fellows even referred to JOI as continuing the mission of the 1960s -- but there's a fair amount of discussion going on in all kinds of religious congregations and movements, from evangelicalism to Unitarian Universalism, about how faith communities might, as they so often say, put their faith into action. Here in Boston, there is a relatively new group of (mostly) young evangelicals, the Boston Faith and Justice Network, working on these issues; the Episcopal Church has a new congregation for young adults, The Crossing, that emphasizes "social justice values,'' and Rabbi Jonah Pesner, formerly with Temple Israel in Boston, is now travelling around the country for the Reform Jewish movement's Just Congregations program, trying to help synagogues figure out how they might actualize their oft-cited support for social justice, and just what that means anyway. And, of course, the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization just marked its tenth year trying to influence policy, on issues like health care and housing, through a coalition of change-minded congregations of multiple denominations.

It's not clear to me whether there's some kind of new trend here or not, and how effective these faith-based efforts are at effecting broad change, but clearly they're affecting individual lives, as the JOI fellows reminded us last night, and for people like me who write about religion, it's something to keep an eye on.

We don't have comments enabled on this blog yet (working on it!) but if you have observations to share, I'm interested -- just shoot me an e-mail.