A moment likely to interest Catholics in particular will be this evening's speech at the Democratic Convention by Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey, Jr.. The younger Casey's invitation is clearly something of a make-up for the 1992 episode when his father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, Sr., a pro-life Catholic, was denied a speaking slot. (Whether the denial was because of the elder Casey's abortion stance or the fact that he would not endorse nominee Bill Clinton is a matter of ongoing exegesis.)

Recently elected as Pennsylvania's junior senator, the younger Casey is also a Catholic and no fan of abortion, though whether he should be considered "pro-life" has become--no surprise--an object of political contention. (The Catholic League says here Casey is not pro-life.)

Casey gives an idea of what he'll speak about in this interview with God-o-Meter's Dan Gilgoff. Here's an especially interesting bit:

Will your speech address the life issue, which is what many in the party identify you with?

Yes, it will. But it's mostly a night and an opportunity when we've been invited to focus on the economy and frankly what a lot of folks are struggling with in Pennsylvania. But certainly not only that. There's been a lot of discussion about '92, but there is an obvious disagreement I have with Senator Obama and we want to make sure that people understand that difference of opinion.

One of the things that's missing in this important debate in American politics is candid and honest talk about disagreements and an honest effort to try to find common ground. It's much easier to say you don't agree with someone and to continue fighting and discontinue the dialogue. It's much harder but it's important to be honest and show respect for others that we disagree but to actually work to bring the sides together.

One way to do that, and neither party has done enough on this, is to be very supportive of pregnant women. And the Pregnant Women Support Act is the only vehicle and the best vehicle to do that. It's a challenge to the left and a challenge to the right and helps not only bring the sides together but provides affirmative options for women. When a woman becomes pregnant, for most women that's a time of happiness and joy and they look forward to bearing a child. But to some it's a crisis because they don't have the economic wherewithal and the support they need. And a lot of women feel all alone and we don't do enough to show solidarity with them. As Pope John Paul II said, we should show radically solidarity with the woman facing these challenges. This piece of legislation is the one vehicle in American government for bringing the sides together and for providing women with options.

But is Senator Obama supporting it?

He's spoken about it. I have gotten to know him on the campaign trail and he spoke about the concept when he was at Rick Warren's church. So I believe he will be supportive. We have not talked directly about the bill but it's something I will be discussing with people in both parties. It's going to take a lot of work.

It should be interesting, especially if Casey raises the issue of conscience and the party loyalist. When the Dems revised the platform plank on abortion, many said the proof would emerge in what was said in Denver and what was done during the campaign and during an eventual Obama administration, should he be elected. Tonight could be an indicator.

Cross-posted at dotCommonweal.

And Aristotle, Aquinas, Archbishop Chaput and various Bishops, and Brokaw...All weigh in on the House Speaker's response to Brokaw on Sunday morning's "Meet the Press" (scroll to the end) in which he raised--yet again--the age-old question, "When does life begin?"

Pelosi's response did not, to say the least, do justice to the Catholic tradition:

MR. BROKAW:  Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker.  When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. 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...

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. 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.

Brokaw was taking up what Rick Warren began at Saddleback, when he asked Obama and McCain that question--though without exploring the lameness (Obama's "above my pay grade") or inconsistency (McCain's "stem cell research is okay") of those answers. On the one hand, it is good to see Augustine, as well as Aristotle before him and Aquinas after him, among others, being discussed in the public square. Very Catholic, we must admit. But  "Meet the Press" doesn't seem like the most enlightening forum for such an issue. Wouldn't the discussion more proper to that venue be about public policy on abortion?  

Pelosi's response earned the first and sharpest retort from Denver's Archbishop Chaput, whose statement one commenter likened to "an attack ad." Maybe not quite, but he's doughty, as ever: "Catholics who make excuses for [abortion--whether they're famous or not--fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The U.S. bishops' Pro-Life and Doctrinal committee heads responded here, and Washington's Archbishop Donald Wuerl also weighed in with a measured statement that included this paragraph:

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

As regards public policy, it is interesting that the final part of Pelosi's answer has received less notice, and no response (that I've seen) from church authorities:

REP. PELOSI: ... 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 best discussion I've seen so far, and by far, is over at dotCommonweal, where several pros weigh in with thoughtful exchanges. Check it out here.

All in all, the Pelosi-Brokaw-Bishops exchange illustrates once again not only the difficulty in linking religious precepts with public policy, but also the difficulty in being a Catholic in public life. With Biden on the ticket, it seems likely this debate will continue. Will it scare McCain away from choosing a Catholic veep?   

According to The Times of London, yes, indeed, an Italian priest (where else?) is holding an online beauty contest to find the best-looking nun.

Father Antonio Rungi, of Mondragone, near Naples, said he expected at least 1,000 nuns to enter the Sister Italia contest. It would run online at first, but he hoped that it would become a "real pageant" along the lines of the annual Miss Italy contest.

Father Rungi, a moral theologian with his own blog, said that the nuns would not wear swimsuits or revealing outfits. What he valued most in a woman was "inner beauty". Asked for his feminine ideal, he replied: "Well, I would say Sophia Loren."

La Ciociara doesn't do too badly on the outer beauty, either. In any case...

The contestants must be aged between 18 and 40, and can be either full members of an order or novices. Father Rungi said that he expected many who applied to be young, attractive -- and non-Italian. He said: "Do you really think nuns are all wizened, funereal old ladies? Today it's not like that any more, thanks to an injection of youth and vitality brought to our country by foreign girls." He said there were nuns from Africa and Latin America who were "really very, very pretty. The Brazilian girls above all."

Okay, all in good fun, I suppose. Still...At best, beauty contests are one of the more absurd competitions--leaving aside a few of the recent Olympic events. And while nuns need not be someone's stereotype of an old crone, how would Mother Teresa fare? On the other hand, no reason nuns shouldn't be babes--be a fine example to the word. Check out Sophia herself in "White Sister" and of course Audrey Hepburn in "A Nun's Story."

Then again, you know what happened at the end of that film...Calling poor Saint Clare--legendary for her beauty--help me!

By choosing the longtime Senate insider and foreign policy expert, Joe Biden, as his running mate, Barack Obama is also gambling that having a Catholic on the ticket will draw in some of the fence-sitting Catholics whose votes will be key to success in November. Peeling away a few evangelical votes, or hoping for a low turnout by the Christian right, is a prayer. As I wrote here, the white, suburban evangelicals who are the bedrock of the GOP election strategy may respect Obama, at best. But he's not a member of the tribe, despite his thoroughgoing Christian bona fides, and it seems nothing will convince them otherwise.

Biden, however, is a strong bet in that he could--and should--play well with many Catholics. From abortion to his working-class background, he represents a viewpoint and a culture that resonate with the broad middle of Catholic opinion that finds the assertions of authoritative political opinion from right and left in the church highly dubious.

Consider Biden's abortion record, as set out here and here. Biden supports Roe v. Wade but backed a federal ban on late-term abortions and opposes public funding of abortion. His record is mixed, which was enough to earn him a NARAL rating (currently at 60 percent) as low as 39 percent in recent years--and NARAL pointedly has not endorsed Biden.  

Moreover, Biden's compelling personal history--from his hardscrabble upbringing in a Catholic family (he breifly considered becoming a priest, as many Catholic boys of that era did) to the tragedy that claimed his wife and daughter, as well as his own near-death experience--have given him a broad perspective on life and a passionate commitment to fighting injustice. Much of his views, in fact, are grounded in Catholic social justice principles, which Obama seems to share intuitively. But Biden can speak to them much more cogently--and perhaps make up for his penchant for shooting from the lip.

A primary source would be this 2007 Christian Science Monitor profile, "A Frank and Abiding Faith," as well as this Pew biography and David Brooks' column from this week, "Hoping it's Biden."  

Will the choice convince any of the knee-jerkers in the McCain camp? Of course not. For too many--on both aides--ideology and party loyalty trump deliberation and introspection, especially at this point in the campaign. You can already see the silly ads and dumb commentary all over the Web. Will the selection tip the "average voter"? Not so much. A Washington Post poll shows that three-quarters of voters said picking Biden would not sway their votes one way or the other. And about as many said they would be more apt to support Obama with Biden on the ticket as said the choice would make them less likely to vote Democratic on Election Day (13 to 10 percent).

But Biden's Catholic, working-class roots, especially in a key region like Scranton in a "keystone" state like Pennsylvania could play well not just there, but in other similar regions in other battleground states, as well as with Catholics as a whole--the true swing vote.

The risky part of Obama's gamble on Biden is that by picking a Catholic--and it wouldn't matter who--he risks reigniting the "wafer wars" (an unfortunately commonplace phrase which--this is an update of a previous version--I'll refrain from promoting further on advice of good counsel) that divide the faithful even more than they are. Given Biden's background and record, however, the Wafer Warriors will have to go some ways to dirty up Biden on the faith issue. As the Pew bio has it:

When the Diocese of Wilmington's bishop, Michael Saltarelli, came under pressure in 2004 and 2005 to deny communion to Biden and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, the bishop refused, saying through a diocesan spokesman that he "prefers prayer and active engagement" with politicians who take positions contrary to church doctrine; Biden refused to comment on the issue. Once again running for president, Biden said in April 2007 that his party must demonstrate it is "not afraid to deal with the faith issue."

On the other hand, Saltarelli's replacement, Bishop W. Francis Malooly, takes office on Sept 8, and his approach to Biden is unknown. Would he want to start his own term by courting such controversy? Most bishops--and Malooly is considered a deliberate fellow--would want to get to know one of their flock before making any drastic public moves, and that may be tough given Biden's coming campaign agenda.

Still, it'll be telling to see what blasts come at Biden from the usual Catholic suspects--and whether they will backfire in a way that would earn Obama-Biden more support than the ticket would have otherwise.  

Okay, add to the list of modern annoyances in sacred spaces checking email and texting. Part of the Crackberry, er, Blackberry culture (which I have recently joined) I guess. Lord, save me. It may be hard.

AOL's Fourth Annual Email Addiction Survey shows that more Americans are checking email while driving, in the bathroom, on vacation--and yes, in church, where email use has gone from 12 percent of folks (at least those who do 'fess up) to 15 percent. (Full results are here.)

I guess we should be happy they're going. But are Catholics better or worse than others? Heck, we have so much to do, what with getting up and down. Still, the Pope may not have helped matters when the Vatican launched a text message service from His Holiness for Sydney's WYD. According to this CNA story, the pope's first text message went:

"Young friend, God and his people expect much from u because u have within you the Fathers supreme gift: the Spirit of Jesus - BXVI."

I liked the "BXVI" signature, but I suspect any middle-schooler would have written it in fewer characters. Still, I strongly doubt the pontiff is checking or sending emails or texts while celebrating mass. I suppose it's encouraging church is still a sanctuary of sorts. Check out these numbers of places check email:

• In bed in their pajamas: 67% • From the bathroom: 59% (up from 53% last year) • While driving: 50% (up from 37% last year) • In a bar or club: 39% • In a business meeting: 38% • During happy hour: 34% • While on a date: 25% • From church: 15% (up from 12% last year)

And here are 10 most-addicted cities. I wonder if Brooklyn is any better?

Here are the ten most email addicted cities in the country:

1. New York
2. Houston
3. Chicago
4. Detroit
5. San Francisco
6. Sacramento
7. Orlando
8. Minneapolis-St. Paul
9. Denver
10. Phoenix

Ship-of-Folls had a competition a few years back for a text message version of the Lord's Prayer. Here are the results, and here is the winner:

dad@hvn,ur spshl. we want wot u want&urth2b; like hvn. giv us food&4giv r sins lyk we 4giv uvaz. don't test us!save us! bcos we kno ur boss, ur tuf&ur; cool 4 eva!ok?

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post

» Continue Reading This Post