An item in the current edition of The Tablet of London hints at a possible opening for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion--even though many do, obviously, their ban from the altar under church law remains one of the sorest pastoral points in the US church. It is also a sore point in Austria, a once uber-Catholic country, whose flock has grown increasingly disillusioned with its leadership.

Now one of those leaders, Cardinal Christophe Schonborn of Vienna, a close ally of Pope Benedict, seems to have suggested that there may be a way to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to remain in the church's good graces. According to the article, Schönborn "has said it is essential to 'broaden the perspective' of the Church's treatment of remarried divorcees, hinting that he could see circumstances under which they should be allowed to receive Communion, such as if they acknowledged their guilt and attempted to reconcile with family members."

Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, where one in two marriages ends in divorce, made his comments in an interview with the Austrian daily Die Presse last weekend. He suggested wronged partners deserved different treatment from those who have been unfaithful. "And then there is the question of the abandoned partners who often have a far more difficult time than those who have already found new partners," he said. He said he would like to see attention distributed more evenly and the problems of "those who have no one to stand up for them in public" included.

Cardinal Schönborn's own parents separated when he was young. "True compassion lies first of all in discussing what is to blame and not promising a quick cure by means of a sacramental sticking plaster." He said that only if and when each case had been honestly appraised, which involved a period of grieving, remorse and perhaps also reconciliation, was it possible to assess, at a diocesan level, whether it made sense to allow people to receive the sacraments again.

It is summed up in a response recounted by Father Jim Martin, a Jesuit and author who posts (and edits) at America magazine's blog. Father Martin has a post on "Three Unreported Papal Stories" from last month's visit. The third is the payoff:

Third: Another priest friend serving as a secretary to one of the local bishops reported on a private dinner with the pope and a few bishops. At the end of the meal, Benedict asked those gathered together to pray for him. "For what intention, Holy Father?" said one. "That I may never get in the way of Jesus Christ."

Sounds obvious? And easy? Not necessarily so.

It seems that the former Reagan adviser and Catholic conservative legal scholar from Pepperdine, Doug Kmiec--heretofore a man with impeccable judicial and pro-life credentials--has been barred from communion for his support for Barack Obama. In a posting yesterday, Kmiec did not give details, but wrote that "recently at a Mass before a dinner speech to Catholic business leaders, a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion."

This is stunning, though perhaps not so surprising, not only because of the impassioned nature of the abortion debate, but because the splits within the Catholic Church and the hierarchy have led prelates like Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis to encourage priests and eucharistic ministers to take this kind of action on their own initiative. That is almost like encouraging guerilla tactics against perceived foes, and in the backyard of your brother bishops, something most bishops I suspect will frown upon, to say the least.

This really broadens the field of battle for the coming campaign. Kmiec is a familiar face, but he's not exactly a presidential candidate. If pundits are going to be barred from communion, the bar for virtual excommunication is pretty low. So I'm off to scrub my previous blog posts praising Obama...

Via dotCommonweal.

A story in today's New York Times about a Buddhist couple--he's a monk--who have vowed never to have sex, but also never to be more than 15 feet from each other:

“It forces you to deal with your own emotions so you can’t say, ‘I’ll take a break,’ ” said Mr. Roach, 55, who trained in the same Tibetan Buddhist tradition as the Dalai Lama. After becoming a monk in 1983, he trained on-and-off in a Buddhist monastery for 20 years, and is one of a handful of Westerners who has earned the title of geshe, the rough equivalent of a religious doctorate. “You are in each other’s faces 24 hours a day,” he said. “You must deal with your anger or your jealousy.” Ms. McNally said, “From a Buddhist perspective, it purifies your own mind.” Ms. McNally is 35 and uses the title of Lama, or teacher, an honor not traditionally bestowed on women by the Tibetan orders.

Okay, everyone jumps on Catholic notions and tales of purity and sex. But even Abelard and Heloise had the good sense to live in different convents. I have no problem with celibacy. A little solitude now and again is indispensible, however.

Exactly a month after wrapping himself in Pope Benedict XVI's copious mantle by welcoming the pontiff with a star-spangled White House gala, George W. Bush seems to have forgotten his catechism. In Israel today, Bush used the ocassion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state to...bash his domestic political opponent, of course. Bush took aim at Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, by painting him as a Nazi appeaser. Nice:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Of course, Bush was doing his own appeasement by playing to a receptive audience. And never mind the old rule (Godwin's Law, more or less) that when you resort to Nazi analogies you've already lost the argument. It would also be best to forget that Bush is negotiating with the North Koreans, who he said he would never negoitiate with, and is talking to the Iranians, and has conveniently forgotten about the guy behind 9/11, and will give the Chinese a big hug during the Olympics despite their persecution of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists...But I digress.

More to the point, think back last month when Bush welcomed the pope by quoting Benedict's favorite church figure (St. Augustine, which Bush pronounced like the city in Florida) and stealing his favorite lines (having abandoned "culture of life"--John Paul's refrain--for Ratzinger's favorite, the "dictatorship of relativism") and endorsing the pope's message of love and the need to live in the world "in mutual support." The two later discussed the Iraq war--which Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul and the Catholic Church as a whole--opposed, and agreed on the need "to confront terrorism with appropriate means that respect the human person and his or her rights."

In his address, Benedict spoke of the importance of the United Nations, where he was to speak two days later, and a body whose advice Bush also rejected in the run-up to war. At the General Assembly in New York, Benedict made a plea--consistent with church teaching and other papal addresses there--for pursuing dialogue above all:

"What is needed is a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation."

That sounds like what Bush would call 'appeasement." And one wonders how Bush's latest comments fit in with the characterizations of him as "speaking Catholic" (Mary Ann Glendon) or as "the first Catholic president," in the words of Rick Santorum and his fellow travelers.

Well, I may not make it to paradise (at least judging by some comments) but there's a chance you'll see E.T. there. Or those weird little guys from Area 51 who can finally solve the mystery for you. Yes, according to RNS, the Vatican's official astronomer, Father Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted in today's Osservatore Romano as saying that intelligent life may exist on other planets and has no need of redemption through Jesus Christ. The interview appeared under the headline: "The extraterrestrial is my brother." (I thought that was a movie.)

"Just as a multiplicity of creatures exists on the Earth, so there could be other creatures, even intelligent ones, created by God," the Argentine Jesuit said. "This does not conflict with our faith, because we cannot set limits on the creative liberty of God." Funes added that such creatures may never have fallen into sin, and so have no need of salvation through Christianity.
"It is not a given that they have need of redemption," he said. "They may have remained in full friendship with their Creator."

The AP also ran with the story.

Michael Paulson had an in-depth article in yesterday's Globe about the apparent victory of Catholic bishops and alums and advocacy groups who have been pushing Catholic universities to bar Catholic commencement speakers with questionable public views, usually on the flashpoint issues of abortion or stem cell research or gay marriage. This cause is the raison d'etre of the pugnacious Cardinal Newman Society and its president, Patrick Reilly, and Paulson cites Reilly's figures. But he also cites a number of bishops and university officials who hail the trend:

"I think that Catholic administrators at Catholic colleges are much more attentive to the selection process than they may have been in the past, and there is a growing awareness that these types of invitations are related to Catholic identity and mission," said Bishop Robert J. McManus of Worcester, who is chairman of the education committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. "I call it truth in advertising," McManus said. "Why would you honor a person, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, that has publicly contradicted the positions of the church?"

The tension still seems there, as the presidents of Notre Dame and CUA acknowledge. But one effect seems to be that more bishops are getting invited to speak. On Sunday, the Aberdeen News of South Dakota reported that a state senator, Nancy Turbak Berry, was disinvited from giving the commencement address last Friday, a day before the event. This was due to her views on abortion rights, she said. She was replaced by the bishop, Paul Swain, and no mention was made of the switch.

So what will be the effect on politics and the church? Will grads get to hear better speakers? Will dissed Catholic pols wear the martyr's mantle? And was there any real benefit to having Catholic pols give commencement addresses anyway?

The evil geniuses at Slate have come up with a series of cellphone rings that will leave those around you with no doubt about your political views. They include Hillary's laugh (I'd use other descriptors), John McCain calling a young questioner a "little jerk," and of course Jeremiah Wright's ringing "God damn America!" There is Obama's "Yes, we can!" motto and, for balance, Hillary's "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"

The ultimate in sound-bite campaigning. Of course, whether this will hurt or help your candidate of choice is the real question.

Via RNS' blog.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has said that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius--a Democrat, Catholic, and abortion rights supporter whose name has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate--should stop receiving communion. The action, outlined in Naumann's May 9 column in The Leaven, the archdiocesan weekly, was triggered by Sebelius' veto of a bill called the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which passed both state houses.

Naumann and Sebelius have a long record of discussing and disagreeing on this issue, and it is no coincidence that the action comes right after Pope Benedict's visit and New York Cardinal Egan's rebuke to Rudy Giuliani, another pro-choice Catholic who took communion--apparently against an agreement he had with Egan--and at a papal mass, no less. The move also comes as Barack Obama, now the virtual Democratic nominee, is coming under increasing fire for his strong abortion rights stands. At one time Sebelius might have been an attractive running mate. But given Obama's struggle with Catholic voters and regular church attenders, and his own abortion rights record, this dust-up may put the Kansan out of the running. Or not.

The issue is an interesting one, with many chapters, and it is worth reading Naumann's column in full. Sebelius, in her veto message, apparently noted that policies she backs have brought down the abortion rate in Kansas, which has become a center for out-of-state abortions and late-term abortions. But Naumann also notes that, incredibly, Sebelius has been taking political donations from Wichita’s famous abortionist, George Tiller, who is, as the archbishops says, "perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation."

Naumann also says he wrote to Sebelius last August asking her to stop receiving communion, but apparently she received recently at an unnamed parish, prompting this public column. Sounds like fodder for a bracing debate. Naumann says Sebelius cannot receive until she "acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion."

Hardly sounds likely. The Kansas City Star also has coverage.

Former GOP presidential candidate and exemplar of everything Mormon, Mitt Romney, last night received the 12th Annual Canterbury medal from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm that (admirably) takes on cases of religious freedom on behalf of all faiths. (The medal is for "Courage in the Defense of Religious Liberty.") In his speech at Manhattan's Metropolitan Club, Romney (who received the medal with his wife, Ann), certainly defended religious liberty and renewed his usual endorsement of religion as the indispensible foundation of freedom and a just society, citing everyone from George Washington to John Adams to Pope Benedict XVI.

The Becket Fund awarded Romney the medal in part because of his speech last December defending his Mormonism. Romney was forced to take that step as he was getting treated as badly as, well, Catholics in the nineteenth century. In that earlier speech he was critiqued rather widely for trying to be too political in folding Mormonism into the mix of American Christianity and dumping on non-believers--playing to a faith-friendly audience. No JFK, he. But getting out of the eye of a political campaign can be good for the vision, and last night Romney had some interesting revisions of his earlier views:

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest — unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off — after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers — why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

Thoughful stuff. The full text is posted at NRO.

Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Center on Long Island released a pastoral letter today [PDF file] ending the fairly common practice of communion services in the absence of a priest--an "extraordinary" form that came into being because of the priest shortage. According to this Newsday story the pastoral letter seems to have been pegged to the too-common recourse to these services at some diocesan schools. But barring them altogther will also mean more work for already overburdened priests, as well as fewer masses for Catholics who the pope wants to be nourished by the Eucharist. So no priests, no eucharist. No eucharist--no church? There seems to be an effort to "tighten up" on liturgical practices in keeping with Vatican wishes. But there is also no discussion of the larger problem behind this pastoral provision--the decline in vocations. Where is this going? No one wants to say.

While John McCain is arguing that Barack Obama is a friend of Hamas (I guess Hamas has signed on to McCain's political team to give him advice?), and while Hillary continues to play the race card to bolster her campaign, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue is invoking Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies by putting a swastika on Obama. Really. Not just any swastika. Responding to yesterday's rejoinder from Obama's Catholic advisory council--whom Donohue had blasted as Catholic dissidents in the vein of Jermiah Wright--the Catholic League head ignored the advisory council's statement and instead focused in on abortion and Obama's record. (Full statement is here.) But here's the kicker:

“It is so nice to know that Obama thinks abortion ‘presents a profound moral challenge.’ Is infanticide another ‘profound moral challenge’? To wit: When he was in the Illinois state senate he led the fight to deny health care to babies born alive who survived an abortion. That, my friends, is not a moral challenge—it’s a Hitlerian decision.”

I haven't seen all the campaign coverage, but this would seem to represent a new low. And it doesn't bode well for the rest of the campaign. I also wonder about the Catholic League itself. GOP advisor Deal Hudson, an FOB (Bill Donohue, that is) and guest blogger here, also responded on Donohue's behalf with a post at InsideCatholic, saying their response was "surprisingly aggressive for a group of Catholics who support a candidate who defends infanticide." (Apart from the infanticide card, why would baby killers surprise anyone by being aggressive? Are there "nice" baby killers? But I digress.)

To me, the interesting revelation was Deal's acknowledgment that the Catholic League and pro-lifers are openly engaged in a "partisan" battle for votes. The Obama advisors took Donohue to task for trying to divide Catholics for political gain. Donohue isn't supposed to do that as he is techincally a non-profit. But now that mask may have slipped as well.

"Partisanship is no crime, just as attempting to win voters to your side is not either. The Obama Catholics are scowling at pro-life Catholics for the very activity they have embraced -- publicly supporting a political candidate."

Actually, partisanship is not licit if you are a 501c3 like the Catholic League. And I think the Obama Catholics were scowling because Deal & Donohue et al are calling their faith into question, not their political ideas and loyalties. In any case, it'll be interesting to see where this goes. With Donohue's $343,000 salary and some $20 million in annual income on the line, this could be an expensive campaign for the Catholic League.

A week after the Catholic League's resident megaphone--a.k.a. Bill Donohue--blasted Obama's blue-ribbon Catholic advisory panel as a bunch of "dissidents" whose presence offends "practicing Catholics" (not to mention making them out to be Catholic versions of Jeremiah Wright) the panel has responded with a more measured (that's not hard) but pointed rejoinder.

The statement essentially tries to defend a "consistent ethic of life" approach and argues that Obama better serves that goal--or they think he will--than any GOP administration would. And they have a good point.

As Catholics, we view abortion as a profound moral issue. But what have nearly three decades of Republican promises to end abortion accomplished? Other aspects of the conservative Republican agenda have been carried out with fervor, such as weakening of the social-safety net, privatization, deregulation, destruction of labor unions, and belligerent and aggressive foreign policy. But ending abortion remains the perennial promise, one that is too often hijacked by partisan operatives who seek only to divide voters. Many Catholics are fed up with the divisive tactics and empty promises around this issue.

But would Obama be better on abortion? That's a big question he'll have to answer in the general campaign. Still, the Catholic advisory committee was smart in citing the bishops own statement on Catholics' political responsibility, which is a pretty straightforward refutation of Donohue's Catholic priorities, a list seemingly edited to echo GOP talking points.

Be interesting to see Donohue's response. I imagine the reaction will be that these are just the usual "liberal" Catholic suspects spouting the usual "consistent ethic of life" line. But that debate does reflect a divide in the church today, and perhaps an opening for a deeper dialogue.

I did think the statement's walkaway an especially wise rejection of partisanship and an embrace of both Catholic tradition and personal responsibility.

Mr. Donohue, your work to fight legitimate cases of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country should be applauded. But when you smear other Catholics with whom you disagree, you betray your own cause. Our measure of what it means to be a “good” Catholic is not defined by the narrow pronouncements of partisan operatives; but rather by the rich teachings of our Church and our informed consciences.

Read the full text below...

Doug Kmiec, the widely-respected conservative legal scholar and pro-life Catholic, made waves back in March when he wrote a piece in Slate endorsing Obama. Now he is back to reaffirm his endorsement and again explain his position. In short, he says:

Not because Senator Obama's position on abortion is mine; it is not. Not because I don't believe Senator Obama could improve the articulation of his position; he could, but because I believe that my faith calls upon me at this time to focus on new efforts and untried paths to reduce abortion practice in America. Senator Obama’s emphasis on personal responsibility, rather than legal bickering over potential Supreme Court nominations in my judgment, best moves this issue forward.

It's a worthwhile exploration of motives and prudential judgments, and while Kmiec--improbably--is now lumped together with anti-Catholic dissidents--perhaps his views will help open some undefined third way out of the abortion logjam.

Via dotCommonweal.

Want to know why Obama hasn't put away the nomination already? One word: Catholics. (Or, for those of you with more ultramontanist sensibilities, two words: Roman Catholics.) We've expended lots of bytes debating it here, and it will surely figure in tomorrow's contests in North Carolina and most especially Indiana. For a primer on the issue, check out two articles.

One is by Melinda Henneberger, a Slate contributor, Commonweal columnist, practicing Catholic and the author of If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians To Hear. In "Hillary for Mother Superior" she pieces together the trail of evidence, some of it self-inflicted by Obama, while others clues leading to places some of us don't want to go:

A priest I know in central Pennsylvania, the Rev. John Chaplin, sees race as an issue. "At my little church, some of what I heard was racial, and some of it was people believing that stuff about Obama being a Muslim," said Chaplin. Parishioners seemed to find video clips of Obama's former preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, particularly shocking in contrast to the formality of the Catholic Mass and our high-church fondness for services so decorous that one really needn't exchange a word with another soul. ("We don't carry on like that in our church" is how one woman in Chaplin's diocese, the 67-year-old wife of a retired cop, described her reaction to Wright to me.) "You know that Catholic thing about propriety," Chaplin said, "that you penalize people for speaking out and never penalize them for keeping quiet? That's part of it, and the Catholic notion of patriotism, which is heavily nationalistic, hurts him, too. This isn't a group predisposed to voting for Hillary..."

She also cites Tina Fey's comparison of Hillary to bitchy old nuns, which always struck me as not only unfair to nuns (I don't know any like that, but I'm an adult convert, post-V2--my knuckles were spared) but also paradoxical: Catholics (seem to) complain endlessly about parochial school nuns, then want to vote for one for prez? Then again, as Melinda points out, the same people who complain about Obama's pastor complain that he is a Muslim...

Then there is this Boston Globe piece today, "Catholics Reflect Schism in Democratic Base," which does a good job unpacking the split.

More to come tomorrow, no doubt.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights--basically a Catholic version of the Anti-Defamation League, or a wannabe, some would say--is often over the top in denunciations of anti-Catholicism, real or perceived, and of other Cathoilics who Donohue sees as not toeing the proper Catholic line. But even Bill Donohue may have outdone himself, and done in his own organization, if his latest press release prompts an IRS investigation.

The May 2 release is "Catholic Dissidents Advise Obama," and it draws down on Obama's Catholic National Advisory Council, made up of Catholics in public and religious life, ranging from Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to the Sister of St. Joseph, Sr. Catherine Pinkerton. Also included are a few Catholic writers and theologians and others who I know well, and others whose work I have long admired. Point of disclosure: I have also known Bill Donohue for years, and while I think he is completely wrongheaded many times, and inimical to the church's well-being other times, he can also be a good guy to have a beer with, as well as someone who does not run from an argument, and an advocate who can point out indisputable cases of anti-Catholicism that still persist.

That said, this latest blast is way outta line. Donohue not only labels these Catholics as "dissidents" but he says "Practicing Catholics have every right to be insulted by Obama’s advisory group"--setting up Catholics who back Obama as bad Catholics and opponents of Obama, by implication, as good Catholics. Donohue employs his favorite trick of the invidious--and distorting--comparison, saying he wouldn't have gay advisors who "don't reflect the sentiment of the gay community"--as if these Obama-backers don't reflect Catholic opinion. (In fact, they largely do. Not that this should be about public opinion, no?)

In his closing, Donohue takes a real potshot, saying that "If these are the best ‘committed Catholic leaders, scholars and advocates’ Obama can find, then it is evident that he has a ‘Wright’ problem when it comes to picking Catholic advisors." As if these Catholics--check out the list--are the equivalent of Jeremiah Wright...!

But let me dissect this a bit more analytically. I see four chief problems.

One is that Donohue bases his criticism of these dozens of advisors principally on the "scores" that the abortion rights group NARAL gives some of the political figures on the committee (conveniently not mentioning the presence of Democrats Bob Casey and Tim Roemer, also on Obama's committee, who have taken stands against abortion rights in many cases). Donohue also states that Obama's pol pals do not agree with the church's "three major public policy issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research and school vouchers." That is a rather selective list, in that the bishops' own statement on political participation, titled "Faithful Citizenship," lists seven principal policy areas, and they include "Option for the Poor and Vulnerable," "Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers," and "Caring for God’s Creation." Not to mention the church's opposition to the Iraq War, which John McCain wants to continue.

Indeed, while Donohue has criticized McCain's alliance with the rock-ribbed televangelist and preacher of standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, John Hagee, he has not brought similar scrutiny to McCain's own Catholic advisory board.

And that raises the second problem, which was noted by the liberal group, Catholics United, namely that Donohue's apparent partisanship could jeopardize the League's 501c3 non-profit status. Catholics United also cites passages from "Onward Christian Solders," a new book by Deal Hudson--a longtime GOP advisor and guest blogger at Casting Stones--that show how Donohue has been active in helping the Bush White House and the Republican Party woo the Catholic vote.

This adds up to a big potential problem for Donohue. Yet it also adds up to a big payday for him. As the League's publicly-available financial forms show, Donohue takes in a whopping $343,000 a year in salary and compensation. He can rightly claim that he has turned the League from a penny-ante mom-and-pop shop into the $20-million-dollar a year culture war machine that it is. But while few would disagree with fighting anti-Catholicism, I wonder how many will see Donohue as getting rich off anti-Catholicism.

A final point: Pope Benedict XVI, who Donohue spares no effort to defend, even when the pontiff is not under attack, made an explicit call during last month's visit for Catholics to seek unity, not division. I'm not sure how Donohue's internecine and potentially partisan sniping achieves that end, or even how attacking other Catholics connects with fighting anti-Catholicism.

I am somewhat reluctant to respond to Deal Hudson's rejoinder if only because he has such a great walkaway: "Catholics in the GOP may be step children, but not orphans." I wish I'd thought of it. But I can find plenty of other drawbacks in his argument that will help me overcome any hesitation...

First off, I would never attempt to stop a debate between Deal and Steve. Just as I would not jump in front of a subway train.

Second, that Catholics like presidents with a strong religious grounding is no surprise. Everyone does. As Ike famously said, every U.S. president has to have a religion, "and I don't care what it is."

Where Deal's analysis goes wobbly, in my view, is in his effort to separate out "self-identified" and "active" Catholics. It sounds like a way to try to figure out who is a "good" Catholic and who is a "bad" Catholic based on frequency of mass attendance. While frequent attenders are more likely to say their faith informs their political thinking, that 50 percent figure is again well below that of other categories, especially evangelicals (81 percent). Moreover, there is, unfortunately, no evidence or guarantee that attending mass regularly ensures that one hews to Catholic teachings, especially as they relate to the public square. Plenty of regular churchgoers throughout history have voted for very bad people. And while regular churchgoers espouse opposition to abortion more readily than other Catholics, they don't necessarily back policies to reduce abortions, they way less frequent attenders do. The GOP's rhetoric on abortion may provide "a partisan advantage," but its record and, more important, the church's teaching, does not. Moreover, the positions of frequent attenders on a range of issues central to Catholic teachings--especially re social justice--are out of step with the bishops, and less frequent mass attenders.

Above all, however, when it comes to politics--as well as faith--it is not for Deal or me to decide who is a "Catholic who cares." Candidates want to appeal to Catholics across the board, and to do that they need to appeal to a broader Catholic culture. Which gets back to our original question: Why are Catholics--including those frequent attenders supposedly more "faithful" to church teaching--voting for Clinton more than Obama? They may be stepchildren in the GOP, but they are stepping up in the Democratic Party. Not much of an outro line, but it'll have to do...

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not likely to fade into the woodwork anytime soon, but while we're in the midst of l'affaire Wright and its toll on Barack Obama, it is worth considering another unsettling lesson in all of this: That for all the talk of closing the "God gap," episodes like this one--and battles over a Catholic's worthiness to receive communion or whether a Mormon should be elected president--show that no candidate in his or her right mind would want to close the "religion gap."

By "religion gap" I mean the (politically) safe distance between a candidate and a religious tradition--a body of believers, a community of truth that can call you on your mistakes, or perceived mistakes. Throughout American history presidents have benefited most when they have maintained the greatest distance from a specific religious tradition. (Steve Waldman can elaborate or dispute this point more authoritatively.) Think of the Deists among the Founding Fathers, or Abraham Lincoln, who is both a god of sorts in the pantheon of our civil religion yet a hero to many atheists. Who recalls any president's religious affiliation? It was usually a generic, non-threatening mainline Protestantism, but even the one Quaker president (Nixon) isn't remembered as such.

Of course everyone knows that JFK was Catholic, and that he, like every Catholic candidate since, has had to contend with that. Same with Mitt Romney, who faced absurd and often scurrilous criticism because of his religion (though he did not respond as thoughtfully or courageously as JFK or Obama). George W. Bush learned the value of being "spiritual but not religious," and could sidle up to the Methodists when it suited him--such as when he wanted his library and think tank built at SMU. But the uproar against Bush's library (including calls to consider excommunicating him--how Catholic!) reinforced the wisdom of branding himself as a non-denominational "follower of Christ," as one biographer says is the president's preferred label. He is embraced by evangelicals as a born again Christian, but he has no congregation, no church, and no denomination. He is certainly more devout than Ronald Reagan--a spiritual master of appearing religious without being so--but not much more of a churchgoer, preferring prayer time and bible studies with friends at Camp David.

Hillary Clinton is a quick study as well. Raised in the United Methodist Church, when she came to Washington in 1992 Clinton began hanging out with a rather odd group of largely conservative evangelicals known as The Family (not The Family of cult infamy) which is also known by the Grisham-esque name of The Fellowship. It certainly has its own baggage, though no one would never speak about it publicly as The Fellowship is a very secretive group. The first good exploration of this group was in Mother Jones last September, though there have been some follow-ups. The beauty of The Fellowship is that it doesn't impose any difficult or embarassing burdens of history or tradition or leadership on Clinton, as does, say, Catholicism, Mormonism, or even the UCC congregationalism of Barack Obama (and Jeremiah Wright, the denomination's unelected pontiff).

That freedom from religion has left Clinton at liberty to criticize Obama on his religion without herself being held to any similar standards. She told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (in a carefully-targeted interview with her old right-wing nemesis) that Wright ”would not have been my pastor…You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” Perhaps she also chose her race and upbringing? She certianly hasn't chosen a church. And no one cites the fact that the pastors in the Methodist churches she has attended (such as Foundry near the White House) defended Wright.

Nor would Clinton even engage a question last month--as she was trumepting her small-town bona fides as a churchgoing Annie Oakley--as to when she had actually attended church, or where. Whether she goes to church, she said, "is not a relevant question in this debate" over Barack Obama’s comments on small town Americans. "We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said. (Now would be good.)

Similarly, when Dan Burke of RNS tried to pin her down on the Methodist Church’s upcoming debate (redux) on gay clergy, Hillary punted, probably wisely.

Q: Your church, the United Methodist Church, is getting ready to meet later this month. One of the issues they will address is whether to allow gay and lesbian clergy. Would you like to see gay and lesbian clergy who are in committed same-sex relationships in the United Methodist Church?

A: I really have not been able to focus on what the church will be debating at its upcoming conference, and it’s obviously a very difficult decision and I am going to wait and follow and watch and not express an opinion or assert my views into the process.

Q: So do you have an opinion on gay clergy?

A: I just want to follow the debate. I have not had time to think through all the points that will be made and want to give a chance for the conference to have a full and thorough debate on the matter.

Well, that's politic, and wise, and in line with what the Clintons did re gays in the military. But the point is that Obama and others who publicly declare themselves part of a religious community and tradition, who practice a religion as well as nurturing a spirituality, face a more difficult political road than those with a free-range faith that can sound awesome in stump speeches but has blessed little baggage when it comes to reconciling one's faith and one's public actions.

As a Catholic, and a convert to that long and messy and saintly church history, I appreciate (as if you couldn't tell) a believer who embraces a community of faith, a candidate who has to contend with the tensions and ambiguities and scandals and egotistical leaders (who just may be speaking the truth to power even as they lust for the spotlight). Because if the difficuties of an Obama or a Romney or a Giuliani can make them look uncomfortable or hypocritical or just downright silly--and can make their churches look the same way--then their struggles are really those of every serious believer trying to reconcile their conscience and faith and personal wishes with the truths and doctrines and communal requirements of a religious tradition.

Steve Waldman and Deal Hudson are having a debate about why Clinton is winning the Catholic vote and Obama is not--an interesting development given that the two candidates share most social justice views that might appeal to Catholics, as well as being pro-choice and pro-gay rights and such.

Steve argues that "in the Democratic primaries, the Catholic vote has nothing to do with Catholicism," while Deal argues that Clinton has already branded herself positively in the eyes of Catholic voters, while Obama has not been able to translate "his social justice package into a family issue, as the Clintons have done so successfully"--and may never do so.

I'd have to side with Steve on this one, yet I'd take it a step further: Catholicism doesn't "matter" to Catholic voters in the general election either. This is not to say that Catholicism doesn't matter to Catholics. It's just that it has little connection to politics, a "great divorce" that has been happening for decades, almost since the apex of Catholic solidarity in the 1960 Kennedy campaign. According to surveys (the Pew surveys being the best source), Catholics consistently say that their faith informs their political choices and views to a lesser degree than it does with any other believers. Depending on how the question is posed, the number of Catholics who say religion is important to their political decisions ranges from 12 percent to 26 percent--the latter figure from a 2004 Pew survey. The next lowest figure was for Mainline Protestants, at 32 percent, and then Jews, at 33 percent. Evangelicals and Black Protestants (hence the import of the Obama-Wright story) clocked in at nearly 6 in 10 saying religion informed their political thinking.

Why is this so for Catholics? It's not necessarily because Catholics have been trending Republican, although