Issues Page

We haven't seen many good models recently, from either party, about how the White House relates to religious communities. We need to do more than merely having chaplains in the corridors of power, or religion functioning as a power bloc within a party to legislate its own narrow agendas, or mere photo-ops at prayer breakfasts for faith leaders at the White House. Let me suggest another model: the "two-way street." One direction of the two-way street is for the faith community to offer you its prayers and support. There will be times when you are going to feel an acute need for those prayers. The other direction of the two-way street is what the faith community can say back to you, which previous administrations, from both parties, haven't fully availed themselves of.

Representatives of 14 Catholic organizations met with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team yesterday in Washington. The Catholic groups presented members of the transition team with a list of policy concerns in the areas of international development and trade, health care reform, immigration, domestic policy and poverty reduction, and the environment. The presentations and policy discussion that followed were based on "Platform for the Common Good," a consensus document that came from a convention the groups hosted this summer in Philadelphia called the "Convention for the Common Good." The Catholic groups gave the transition team copies of the document, which, they say, advocates policies that are "enlivened by the Gospel message of hope and the wisdom of Catholic social teaching."

Church-state separation is one of the signs of the progress of humanity, says Benedict XVI. The Pope affirmed this Saturday when he visited the Italian embassy to the Holy See. The Church "not only recognizes and respects the distinction and autonomy" of the state vis-a-vis the Church, but also "takes joy in this as one of the great advances of humanity," he said. This separation is "a fundamental condition for [the Church's] very liberty and the fulfillment of its universal mission of salvation among all peoples," the Holy Father added. "This brief visit is conducive to reaffirming that the Church is very aware that the distinction between what is of Caesar and what is of God belongs to the fundamental structure of Christianity."

I suppose that those of us who are Christians should not be surprised that the God that commanded us to feed the hungry, attend the sick, clothe the naked and love our neighbors as ourselves would have a similar soft spot for those who have been displaced from their native homeland. But certainly this passage is hard to reconcile with the rhetoric I have heard from some of my Christian brothers and sisters on this issue. Skeptics are likely to see such inconsistency as hypocrisy and, in many cases, I share their skepticism. However, for most I suspect there is a more complicated explanation.

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.

The gracious tone of Sen. John McCain's election-night concession speech was both impressive and reassuring, especially his call for Americans to bridge abiding differences and forge the "necessary compromises" the nation requires. Unfortunately, that tone and sentiment were lacking in the response of many Catholic bishops to Barack Obama's victory. Most striking were the public statements made by apparently outraged bishops during the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops fall meeting in Baltimore, November 11. Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, released a brief official statement the following day, reflecting the bishops' concerns over the supposedly imminent threat posed by President-elect Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The remarks of many bishops during the televised portion of the meeting were intemperate and polarizing, and their panic over FOCA is premature.

Catholics of good will, acting in good faith, have - and will continue - to differ on how best to respond to the tragedy of abortion in the United States. Some, of course, have placed their overriding focus on overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973. Others, the NCR editors included, have advocated rooting out the causes that lead women to have abortions. We have argued that Catholics, while not agreeing on the political wisdom of overturning Roe, should agree to work together to reduce the numbers of abortions occurring in the U.S. We went on to speak about the special responsibilities of pro-lifers who supported the Democratic Party platform that calls for efforts to reduce U.S. abortions.

Although the hot topic in the recent presidential election was solving the nation's economic mess, religion continued to be on people's minds. Some of it showed up as the same old red state-blue state divisiveness but there were also some major detours from the well-trod path of spiritual politics. Whether you feel that faith was scorned or celebrated in this election, now that it's all over may be a good time to review what we've learned. Jim Wallis is the editor and founder of the evangelical magazine Sojourners as well as a blogger, speaker, preacher and the best-selling author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." I asked him how traditional Christians are responding to the recent election and where he thinks we should all go from here.

On the heels of the U.S. bishops' recent declaration that abortion remains their top political priority, Pope Benedict XVI this morning issued a reminder that children already born, especially those who suffer from poverty, disease and war, must also have a place within the church's ambit of concern. While Benedict clearly affirmed the dignity of human life from the moment of conception, his remarks suggest a desire that the church's opposition to abortion not exclude other pressing social concerns. The pope spoke this morning to participants in a Nov. 13-15 conference organized by the Pontifical Council for Assistance to Health Care Workers, on the theme of "Pastoral Care of Sick Children." Benedict noted that every year, some four million newborn children die around the world at less than 26 days after birth, often due to poverty, poor health care systems, and armed conflict. He called that a matter of "urgent" concern.

Americans painted a new picture of the "values voter" in the recent election. They rejected the "culture wars," with its narrow agendas and liberal-conservative divisiveness, in favor of politics that build bridges on a range of contentious issues. The readiness to work together is revealed in a national poll on voters' priorities and values taken on Nov. 5-7 in the immediate aftermath of the election. Nearly three-quarters of voters (and of religious voters) said people of faith should promote the common good, not protect their own views. Even groups most active in the religious right said a broader faith agenda would best reflect their values.

Judging by the headlines this campaign, you might have thought the shepherds were headed one way and the flock in another direction. That's not quite the case, as reports of 50 or 60 or even 100 bishops promoting a "McCain-or-be-damned" approach to abortion and the civil sacrament of voting don't hold up under scrutiny. Still, there's no doubt many more bishops than usual want a more forceful approach to political activity, and that will be an interesting (closed-door) discussion next week when they gather in Baltimore. The "flock"-some 65 million or so of us lay folk and ordinary religious-also didn't go en masse over the cliff for Obama, though it's pretty clear the bishops didn't have much sway, or if they did, it may have been to push Catholics the other direction. Catholics as a whole went for Obama 54-45, a major swing from 2004, when they went for Bush over (Catholic) John Kerry.

The greening of religion, although long overdue, is really a quite natural phenomenon. The texts of many faiths, indeed most, at some point reference the stewardship of this earth. More surprising is that today, secular environmental groups are seizing the opportunity to reach out to faith communities. A Sierra Club report highlights faith-based environmental initiatives in all 50 states "spiritually motivated grassroots efforts to protect the planet." One line leaps off the page: "Lasting social change rarely takes place without the active engagement of communities of faith." Indeed. Think of the U.S. civil rights movement, Solidarity in Poland and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Social change does not stick without the glue of religion.

Catholics should not embrace the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, for that matter) as presently constituted. Neither party, it is safe to say, reflects Catholic social teaching in its fullness. Catholics should not accommodate their beliefs to the two political parties rather than reform or challenge them. Surely accommodation is part of the problem in Catholic America not the solution. For four decades, Catholics have knuckled under to political leaders; with little say so from Catholics, the Democratic Party moved left on cultural issues, while the Republican Party moved right on economics. This remains the case today. Few Catholic conservatives challenge the GOP to do more to help the poor and vulnerable here at home; few Catholic liberals or progressives challenge the Democratic Party to extend legal protections to unborn infants.

I was driving home when I heard on my car radio a minister say that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a Looney-tune idea. I don't make a habit of speaking back to the radio, but I couldn't help but scream, "It's in the Bible!" Acts 2: 44-45 reads: "And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need." The dying gasp of the McCain-Palin campaign tried to make 'sharing the wealth' into Obama socialism, apparently without any more awareness than the radio preacher that socialized wealth is in the bible. Marx and Engels repeatedly refer to Early Christianity as a touchstone for the socialist ideal - although they complain that a non-religious "scientific" socialism (i.e. Communism) is needed.

Now is the time for all good women and men to come to the aid of their country! That (with a slight modification) was the first sentence I learned to type when there were actually typing classes in high school. After the election on Tuesday, we need to take those words to heart. John McCain gave a courageous, generous and patriotic concession speech on Tuesday night. His words and behavior after the election results became clear should be an example to us all. We have too much to do in this country and around the world to continue the polarization which has racked this country for the past many years. We all know that we have very serious issues which need to be addressed in the months and years ahead. No one has all the answers ... not the Democrats ... not the Republicans ... not the Libertarians or Green Party or any other political, social, economic or religious viewpoint or organization. On the other hand, each group has some positive ideas to contribute to addressing our national and international challenges. Let's do it together.

After a presidential campaign in which it was widely perceived that the dominant message from the bishops was that Catholics were morally obliged not to vote for a candidate supporting abortion rights, exit polls show that Catholics voted 52 percent to 45 percent for Senator Barack Obama. That was seven percentage points more than the Catholic vote in 2004 for Senator John Kerry, a fellow Catholic. Hispanic Catholics, a group the bishops often hail as representing the future of the church in the United States, led the way. Latinos voted 67 percent for Mr. Obama, 16 percentage points more than their vote for Mr. Kerry. Latino Catholics, usually more Democratic than Protestant Latinos, almost certainly voted for the Democratic nominee at an even higher rate.

U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, meeting a week after the election, are re-examining how they explain church teaching after President-elect Obama, who supports abortion rights, won a majority of Catholic votes. During the campaign, many bishops had spoken out on abortion more forcefully than they had in 2004, telling Catholic politicians and voters that abortion should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. Yet, according to exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant, and Vice President-elect Biden, who is Catholic. Biden also thinks abortion should be legal.

Large numbers of Catholics and religiously unaffiliated voters heavily contributed to President-elect Barack Obama's huge margin of victory over Republican Sen. John McCain, according to an analysis of exit poll surveys by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Obama had a greater appeal for religious people," said John Green, a senior fellow at Pew. "I don't think we would have seen that support had Hillary [Rodham Clinton] been nominated." Catholics voted for Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain by a nine-point margin (54 percent versus 45 percent), a turnaround from 2004 when Catholics supported President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, by a five-point margin (52 percent to 47 percent).