In an op-ed in today's LA Times, Catholic priest and sociologist Andrew Greeley writes:

"In the run-up to the last seven presidential elections, experts on both sides have predicted that the 'Catholic anti-abortion' vote would cause trouble for the Democrats, especially given the drift of Catholics from Democratic alighment. Both these 'theories' -- a Catholic anti-abortion vote and a Catholic realighment -- are urban folk tales that float around in the collective consciousness of the media with very little basis in fact."

I wish the article didn't require registration (I know the process is free, but it's also too confusing for my little brain -- I have registered about five times so far and forgotten all of my various usernames and passwords). It's definitely worth a read if you can access it via here. Moreover, it gives me hope that someday I too can use my sociological training for good and not trivial.

Elsewhere on the web today, Nick Confessore raises the question of whether George W. Bush's views on abortion are in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. You may say that it doesn't really matter because Bush isn't a Catholic. To which I -- and Nick, in this post -- respond, okay, then why doesn't anyone seem to care that Bush's views on a dozen major issues dissent from the teaching of his very own church?

I figured if I waited a couple of days after the Pistons captured the NBA Championship in the most dominating, impressive, and all-around convincing of fashions it might sound a little less like gloating. Maybe not. Nevertheless, hearty congratulations to my hometown team. They'll never quite replace Joe, Isaiah, Vinnie, John, Rick, Bill, Adrian, and yes even Dennis in my basketball fan's heart, but that's only because 1989 was such an incredible year for the sport in the state of Michigan.

I'll leave the tributes to fellow Michigander Jon Chait, whose essay on how the Pistons saved basketball is well worth a read. As for me I'll just take a moment to explain how this basketball series reminds me of the presidential campaign (oh, come on -- you knew I'd find a way to connect the two...)

Before Game One of the Finals, it was nearly impossible to find anyone outside of Michigan (not counting displaced Michiganders) who thought that Detroit stood a chance against the vaunted Lakers. Even after the Pistons' resounding victory in the first game, L.A. awe held sway. "How unexpected is this?" asked commentators rhetorically. "What a shocking win...a fairytale come true."

Well, not really. It was only unexpected if you believed the Lakers' hype, if you managed to ignore the fact that the band of all-stars -- while still impressive -- is getting older and slower with every year. If you turned a blind eye to the advantages Detroit brought to the series. If you didn't recognize that the Lakers' gameplan has not adjusted to match the changing realities of a more defense-driven league. "The Pistons don't have a chance," friends told me. "The Lakers won't be stopped by that defense." "But what if they are?" I asked. "Then the Pistons win, right?"

Last spring, after Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, a disturbing number of otherwise-quite-bright Democrats threw up their hands and told me, "That's it. He's won. The economy will turn around, and even if it doesn't, he's a war president. It's in the bag. Why even bother?" I have to admit to being perplexed by this. "But what if Iraq doesn't go well?" I asked. "Doesn't matter. We still lose. Americans don't care."

After Congress passed the Medicare reform bill last fall, even more Democrats shook their heads and said, "Game over. That's it. We lost the seniors. That's the election." And when Saddam Hussein was captured in December, friends called to say, "Bush has a free ticket to four more years. We can't beat that. We're done for."

Pull it together, people. Don't believe the hype. We're stronger than we think and they're more vulnerable. For goodness sake, have a little faith in your cause. The trash talk is only going to increase the closer we get to the election. But that's only because they don't have the skills to back it up. You know the phrase. Say it with me. Bring. It. On.

UPDATE: E.J. Dionne says sort of the same thing, in a different way. And although he doesn't mention the Pistons, I'm sure he meant to.

I spent much of last fall trying to pitch a "Why the Catholic Church will take on John Kerry" piece to various political publications and everyone told me that it didn't matter because Kerry wasn't going to be the nominee and besides, even if he was, this was just an internal church battle. Try a religious magazine, they said.

So I did. Yet another version of my take on the whole "Is John Kerry a good Catholic and does it really matter?" question can be found in my article in the current issue of Commonweal magazine.

I'll just underline two main points in the piece here. The first is how surprising and inconceivable it is that the Kerry campaign did not anticipate that this debate that has been taking place within the Catholic Church for two decades now would become an issue if Kerry -- the first Catholic presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy -- became the Democratic nominee. If I could figure it out and I'm just a Protestant girl, what were they thinking? (I'll tell you what they were thinking -- they were hoping it would go away, as they continue to hope now instead of developing a coherent answer to the questions that continue to dog the candidate and his campaign.)

The second point of the piece is one that will be familiar to readers of Political Aims -- I think this entire debate is going to backfire on those conservative bishops who have raised it to a national stage. When this issue was raised only in pastoral studies between Catholic politicians and their pastoral leaders, it remained at a very private level, which is, I believe, where it belongs. By making this a public issue in the midst of a presidential campaign, however, some bishops are clearly trying to enlist the help and coercive power of the electorate. Do you think John Kerry is a bad Catholic? Do you think he should refrain from receiving communion? Then don't vote for him. That's the clear implication, and it's one that simply will not work. The Catholic Church may oppose in principle the separation of church and state, but most Americans do not. They don't like it when anyone tells them how to vote. Religious authorities are no exception.

Plenty of people have written over the past few months to suggest that the Catholic Church's emphasis on abortion makes absolutely no sense if they don't also punish politicians who dissent from Church teaching on the death penalty (in other words, those who support the use of the death penalty). While I agree that the discussion of some bishops to focus on abortion to the exclusion of all other issues the Church cares about is incredibly frustrating, there is an important distinction between Church teaching on the two issues.

Although it was not always the case, the Church now teaches that life begins at conception, meaning that the use of everything from birth control to abortion ends a fully human life. The use of the death penalty, however, is permissible according to the Church so long as the state has no other means of protecting its citizens. As we know, this Pope is particularly opposed to capital punishment and has essentially condemned it in all circumstances. And we also know that the modern U.S. state has plenty of other means of protecting its citizens, so in practice, the Church has treated the U.S. as a society that should not resort to the use of the death penalty. However, it's not entirely accurate to say that abortion and the death penalty are both prohibited by church teaching -- the one is in every circumstance and the other only given certain conditions.

All clear now? Good.

On a completely different topic, I'd like to thank all of the alert readers who wrote to let me know that Ronald Reagan's favorite flavor of jelly bean was in fact licorice. Ick. My sister and I have always been partial to Jelly Belly's buttered popcorn and bubble gum, which we used to buy as a treat at the local candy store. Eat a quarter pound of those in an afternoon and I guarantee you'll be sick.

And finally, enough already with the people who keep writing to tell me that "Spartacus" isn't a biblically-themed movie. Do you have nothing better to do? You're not telling me anything I don't already know, but since our editor-in-chief's uncle was in the movie, I had to put it in the piece. To suggest, as one correspondent did, that this fact renders the rest of my observations suspect is foolish.

No, Kevin Drum, you are not dreaming. Kobe Bryant really did miss seven of his first eight shots last night and my Detroit Pistons really are just one win away from winning the NBA Finals.

Hey, fair is fair. Your Trojans beat my Wolverines for the college football championship. We'll settle for a basketball championship this year.

I really really should be on the road to Princeton right now, but I can't let this story go without comment. The National Catholic Reporter is reporting that during a June 4 meeting with the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, President Bush complained that "not all the American bishops are with me" on the cultural issues and expressed his hope that the Vatican would pressure those bishops toward, as the NCR columnist puts it, "more explicit activism." Cardinal Sodano, for his part, did not respond.

Oh good golly.

My initial reaction is that Bush has totally muffed this one up. Overplayed his hand. Pressed his luck. Wasn't it enough to get the nice photo-op with the Pope? Did he really have to go and ask the Vatican for help with his reelection campaign?

It's one thing for bishops to hear from the Vatican about the special responsibility of Catholic elected officials. Or to write their own letter asserting their authority over those same politicians. It is quite another to have an American president (and a Protestant, to boot) tell them that they should be "with" him and more active in cracking down on recalcitrant Catholic politicians.

I believe the main job of bishops is to be "with" God. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

It shouldn't be long before we hear two things from various bishops in response. One is that Bush is hardly "with" them on issues ranging from the situation in Iraq to the morality of what happened at Abu Garib -- whether you call it torture or abuse or a fraternity prank -- to welfare policies to the death penalty. He absolutely cannot demand that they join with him on some issues while refusing to discuss his differences with them on others.

The second is that the bishops already agree with Bush on the substance of these cultural issues, they already oppose abortion and gay marriage and stem cell research. What he is asking them to do is to endorse a strategy -- the denial of communion as a coercive political tool -- about which many of them feel a great bit of discomfort. Bush is inserting himself into an internal church debate and asking bishops on one side to change their minds because that would help him politically.

That's so wrong in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin. But I won't have to. Because these bishops are not stupid. Many of them may indeed be acting with political motives. They absolutely cannot afford, however, to allow the perception that their actions are directly tied to Bush's political campaign. They know that the level of trust they inspire among the laity is the lowest in modern times. The sex abuse scandal knocked them off their pedestal and the attention given to attempts to bully Catholic politicians has further diminished their standing. They're going to have to respond to Bush's comments forcefully and quickly, before they lose even more support among their parishioners.

A nice loud "You're not the boss of us!" would do the trick.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of the readers of this fairly liberal blog on this fairly progressive website have not heard of the "Left Behind" books, a 12-part series by the fundamentalist minister Tim LaHaye that plot the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus. Furthermore, I'm going to guess that if I told you that more than 60 million of these books have been sold, most of you would think that was, oh, a bit frightening.

And while I agree that the books are incredibly right-wing and theologically somewhat suspect, I'm here to tell you that their massive popularity is merely a sign of the enormous untapped market for Christian-themed entertainment and not a reason for all good liberals to go lie down in a cool, dark room and await the Apocalypse.

For more, read my essay in this month's Washington Monthly. Some reporters brave war zones and enemy fire; I read four of the books in the Left Behind series so you don't have to. Although I think you really can't appreciate good literature until you've watched as an author totally committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible tries to explain why thousands of soldiers in a modern-day battle would ditch their Hummers for horses just because that's what they ride in the Book of Revelations. Painful.