Over the past few weeks, I've heard three stories about the recent papal visit that I've found especially moving.

First: The visit of Pope Benedict XVI with Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., who has been ailing, in a private meeting in Cardinal Egan's suite in St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, on Saturday afternoon, April 19. This meeting took place after the pope greeted disabled children. The following account is taken from the New York Jesuits' newsletter, written by Anne Marie Kirmse, O.P., Cardinal Dulles's longtime assistant.

"The Pope literally bounded into the room with a big smile on his face. He went directly to where Avery was sitting, saying, 'Eminenza, Eminenza, I recall the work you did for the International Theological Committee in the 1990's.' Avery kissed the papal ring and smiled back at the Pope. Then the Pope looked at the people in the room who had accompanied Avery to the Seminary: Fr. Tom Marciniak, who served as Cardinal Dulles's priest-chaplain for the meeting; Sr. Anne-Marie Kirmse, O.P.; and Francine Messiah and Oslyn Fergus of the [Jesuit infirmary's] medical staff. After this warm and friendly exchange of greetings, the Pope sat down next to Avery to hear the remarks that Avery had prepared and which were read for him by Fr. Tom Marciniak. During the presentation, Fr. Tom handed the Pope a copy of Avery's latest book, Church and Society: The Laurence J. McGinley Lectures, 1988-2007, which was published earlier this month by Fordham University Press. The Pope expressed great interest in the book, and even interrupted the reading of the remarks to ask again when the book had been published. He eagerly looked through it, and was touched by Avery's inscription to him. Before leaving, the Pope blessed Avery, assuring him of his prayers, and encouraging him in his sufferings. He then said good-bye in turn to each of the four persons who accompanied Avery."

Second: A friend who works at the Holy See's Mission to the United Nations, told me that each night at the Papal Nuncio's residence on the Upper East Side, hundreds of people would come to stand outside of the residence, until the pope would emerge. To great cheers, people would hand him babies to be blessed, serenade him with songs, and wait for his blessing before he retired for the night. According to my friend, the pope pronounced this these unscheduled encounters as his "favorite" part of the entire visit. The photo below is from outside the cardinal's residence, on Friday night. "It was a very moving moment of contact with people," said Federico Lombardi, SJ, the Vatican spokesman. "It is not so easy for him to have direct contact."

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."

James Martin, SJ

There are some odd rules in the land of publishing. For example, if you "blurb" a book, that is, write a few sentences of praise for the back cover or for advertisements, you can't review it. (Strange, I know.) Or, if you have some sort of professional connection to the author when you're reviewing it, you are obliged to state that somewhere in the review. (E.g., "Bishop So-and-so's book is terrific! Full disclosure: he's my ordinary.") Another practice to be avoided is "literary logrolling," that is, giving blurbs and praise to people who have blurbed and praised you.

You can see the problem. If you have friends or colleagues who write good books, it's hard to praise them in a review! With that in mind, I wanted to break all these rules and tell you about five wonderful new books that might make some good summertime reading for you. All are by friends, and all are terrific.

Jeremy Langford (full disclosure: good friend, introduced him to his wife, celebrated their wedding) has written a terrific book on spirituality under the title "Seeds of Faith: Practices to Grow a Healthy Spiritual Life." Jeremy is a popular speaker in Catholic circles and (more full disclousure) currently works for the Chicago Province Jesuits. His new book is one that almost everyone can use: simple, clear, and direct advise on things like prayer, community, friendship, solitude and even celebration, all sprinkled with well-told anecdotes and examples. If I could give one book to a young person (or older person, for that matter) who is asking the questions, "What does it mean to be a spiritual person in the world today?" it would be this one. And by the way, it's a small book, beautifully designed and packaged. You can judge a book by its cover.

Next on my list is a spectacular new book by one of my all-time favorite spiritual writers, William A. Barry, S.J. (Full disclosure: fellow Jesuit, former superior, first guy to mission me to America magazine.) Bill Barry's great insight for readers is that a relationship with God can profitably be compared to a relationship with a good friend, and what you can say about one (it needs openness, honesty, change, silence, etc.) you can say about the other. His new book "A Friendship Like No Other: Experiencing God's Amazing Embrace," builds on this crucial insight--an insight that changed my life. One of my favorite parts of his book is his fascinating discussion on entering into an "adult" relationship with God. When we age our relationship with our parents change. Does our relationship with God do the same? Read this lovely little book to find out.

Justin Catanoso (full disclosure: new friend) is a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist who teaches at Wake Forest University. He is also the cousin of one of the church's newest saints, St. Gaetano Catanoso. His glorious new book "My Cousin the Saint" tells the story of his cousin (about whom he knew little before his canonization a few years ago by Pope John Paul II), his discovery of his family's in Calabria, and, ultimately, his reclaiming of his Catholic faith. My favorite part comes when he interviews the redoubtable Jesuit Peter Gumpel, who works for the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints. After having read considerably about the saint-making process and the saints (more full disclosure: including my own book on the saints) Catanoso tells Father Gumpel that he finds the process a bit too "bureaucratic." Gumpel answers sensibly, "How would you go about it?" It's a great story: part travelogue, part detective story, part spiritual journal, and beautifully told.

Another new friend is Donna Freitas, who teaches theology at Boston University. She has written a wonderful, mind-clearing book (full disclosure: I'm only part-way through it) on sexuality among young people. It's called "Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance and Religion on College Campuses." Her findings are hair-raising. (One reviewer, Jean Hughes Raber, in Commonweal, accurately compared some of Freitas's real-life stories with the fictional ones in Tom Wolfe's searing portrait of the "hook-up" culture in his book I am Charlotte Simmons.) Freitas visited America House a few months ago and noted that while college students (including Catholic ones) are struggling with their sexual appetites, they feel that the church gives them little real guidance beyond "Be celibate." Moreover, young people are actively looking for useful ways of integrating their sexuality into a healthy life--which may mark a great teaching opportunity for the church. Freitas's book is a boon to anyone who not only cares about our nation's young people, but who has previously learned about this phenomenon only through rumors or anecdotes. Read her book, based on dozens of interviews, for the real scoop.

Finally, I've mentioned here before Robert Ellsberg's new collection of the journals of Dorothy Day, called "The Duty of Delight." I can't praise this book enough. (Full disclosure: good friend, publisher of one of my books, frequent dinners at his family's house.) So far I'm still in the 1930s, but Dorothy comes across as almost astonishingly human. "As I sit, I am weeping--I have been torn recently by people, by things that happen," she writes in 1935. Real stuff makes for real saints. This is bound to be a classic book in Christian spirituality. Why not read it right now?

Full disclosure: I'll bet these friends are happy that I've mentioned their books. More full disclosure: You'll be even happier when you read them.

James Martin, SJ

The politics of abortion took an especially nasty, and bizarre, turn this past week when conservative Catholic writer and law professor Doug Kmiec revealed that he had recently been denied communion because of his public endorsement of Barack Obama's candidacy. Thus, as in 2004, some conservative clergy and their lay supporters seem determined to turn the altar rail into a battlefront in the culture wars.

Kmiec has made clear that he endorses Obama despite the senator's pro-choice position. This puts him squarely within the scenario set out by the U.S. Catholic bishops in their statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship": There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil." (No. 35)

Kmiec, who served in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations, is clearly not seeking a "partisan preference" by making his choice. He has publicly cited the "truly grave moral reasons" that have led him to hold his nose about Obama's pro-choice stance: his opposition to the Iraq War, his pledge to create a less rigidly partisan political culture, and his suspicion of excessive secularism.

The rub for conservatives, however, is that Kmiec has had the courage to point out the futility of the political course they have been pursuing in recent years on life issues. For all the protest marches, for all their political ads, for all the Supreme Court battles, Roe is still not only the law of the land, but if it were overturned tomorrow, the defenders of life are ill-prepared to sway public opinion in the countless state legislative battles that would ensue. Calling people with differing views "Hitlerian" is not the way to sway public opinion. And, conservatives seem convinced that if they just deny communion to pro-choice politicians, this will do the trick.

Setting aside the theological issues involved which I leave for smarter people than myself (like Pope Benedict XVI, who did not throw a fit when Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and others presented themselves for communion at his recent Masses here in America), making the altar rail the principal battlefield misses the opportunity that exists to really change the culture in a way that will actually defend life. The struggle is for the hearts and minds of the women who are facing a crisis pregnancy. The battlefield we should be fighting is at your neighborhood crisis pregnancy center. And, that is a place where the Church's strongest armament, love, will make the difference. It is also where the Church's sometimes necessary but best never used power to sanction and condemn will be hugely counter-productive.

Americans who are concerned about stopping abortion need to reach out to the women contemplating one. We need to stand by them. We need to fight for medical assistance and financial aid for these women, many of whom are poor and young. They need counseling. They need free pre-natal care. They need someone to tell them they are not alone. They need a community of friends and family, and the extended family of their parish, to help them see their way clear to make the heroic choice to carry their child to term. They need artists and writers to celebrate their heroism. There is no shortage of work that can be done. And the example these young women provide, and the beauty of the children they bring to birth, will do more than a thousand protest marches to change the abortion-on-demand culture that all Catholics agree must change.

Kmiec and others believe that Obama will be responsive to efforts to reduce the number of abortions in America. A group of Catholic legislators, some pro-life and some pro-choice, worked to pass legislation that aims to provide assistance to young mothers. That is where the battle should be fought – giving women choices other than abortion. Conservatives who are too invested in the old ways and the partisan advantages the old ways encourage have failed to change the culture. Doug Kmiec is prepared to try a new approach. He may be right, He may be wrong. But, he should not be denied communion for trying.

Michael Sean Winters

Jesuit Yoga II Cambridge, MA. One of the things that most attracts people to yoga, I think, is that it is wholesome, challenging, and able to bring a deep sense of well-being to body, mind, and spirit -- all without seeming to impose an alien worship on the practitioner. Even in the ancient Indian traditions, and certainly now in America, it has always seemed possible to practice yoga and at the same time maintain, even deepen, our original and continuing faith commitments. But at the same time, this very point is a source of worry for others, since yoga seems blithely unconcerned about matters of religion: as if its energies were elsewhere, making religious commitment seem not so much a problem, as simply optional. If yoga is a powerful religious system, shouldn't it conflict in a more direct way with Christian commitment? Or are we missing something? Since yoga is many things to many people, there are probably many answers to this question; much depends on where we learned yoga, how we practice it, etc. But I do find a certain wisdom and challenge again in the Yoga Sutras of Patañjali (introduced in my last entry). Early in the Sutras, Patañjali remarks on the efficacy of turning to God. In I.12, he had said that the fluctuations of the mind are calmed by constant practice, and by the learning of dispassion, detachment. After some intervening matters, he adds, Or --by turning to the lord. (I.23) The Sanskrit word for "lord" here -- ishwara -- may or may not refer to God as ordinarily understood, but certainly an important strand of the yoga tradition has assumed that Patañjali is here offering that option, as if to say, "If not constant practice and dispassion, then try turning to the Lord -- that will work too." For many people, perhaps, the most effective path is turning to the Lord; to the person who is attentive and focused, the divine person in turn responds graciously, giving him or her the calmness and clarity desired. Now it may be unsettling that Patañjali is so matter of fact about all this: bodily discipline can work; detachment can work; OR turning to the Lord can work. Being devotional is not the only way to achieve what one seeks, but it may indeed be your best way, so turn to the Lord. This openness may obviously be unsettling for some readers: you can find your way to peace through devotion -- but you have other options too. Patañjali goes on to describe this Lord: he is "untouched by afflictions, actions, the fruits of action, or their residue;" he is omniscient, with a knowledge that will not be surpassed; all teachers have learned from him, for he is not limited by time. (I.24-26) One can reach him by repetition of the sacred word Aum, a practice that clears away obstacles and affords us heightened consciousness (I.27-29). There is no mention here of the ordinary resources of devotion, love, affection; rather, we find our way to this Lord through the holy word, which itself is effective in changing us. This is intriguingly like -- and yet unlike -- a Christian commitment to know God through the word of God. All of this -- there is much more that could be said -- should be at least bracing and stimulating for us who are believers, dedicated to Christ, and yet too seeking calmness, clarity, dispassion, and freedom. It may be inaccurate for any of us to claim that our spiritual well-being is solely dependent on God. The rituals, practices, moral virtues and dispositions we cultivate over time may well give us much of what we find wholesome and helpful in our religion. It might even be that the Bible, as Word of God, inspires us in its eloquence and, over time, with the words by which we live our lives. God is at the core of all this but Patañjali may be asking us, How does God --plus the ritual and scripture and other things of your religion -- help keep your life together? Or, even more basically, we might ask: have we ever been intent enough in our spiritual practice, or deeply dispassionate enough, that we might realize what is means to say that turning to the Lord is an alternative even to my religion? It's a good question for a Jesuit too: detachment, poverty, obedience, chastity, energy, vision, love -- plus turning to the Lord? (Note: I usually borrow a hopefully free image from the web to start my entries; this time, I happily hit upon notice for yoga classes at Manresa House of Retreats, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Check it out on the web: www.manresa-sj.org/280_Christian_Yoga.htm )

Back when it looked like Obama had the nomination in hand in February, I nominated Sen. Jim Webb as the best Veep choice. After hearing from readers, I also wrote about some other options including Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and General Anthony Zinni. Since February, Hillary Clinton's resilience has increased the desirability of choosing a woman for the second slot. I nominate Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

But, wait a minute! Sen. Snowe is a Republican. Precisely. Obama is running as the change agent this year and it is a desirable place to be. Yet, he has not really sketched out precisely how he intends to change the ways of Washington to better accomplish the people's business beyond a verbal commitment to move beyond partisanship. What better way to add some substance to his commitment than by picking a Republican vice-presidential candidate?

Snowe's bipartisanship is real. She was part of the Gang of 14 who pulled the Senate back from the precipice of a disaster on the issue of judicial confirmations. Many Democrat and Republican partisans criticized the deal. Democrats were especially upset after it paved the way for the confirmation of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the high court, but the agreement nonetheless staved off a potential crisis of confidence in government's ability to function.

There is not a whiff of the right-winger about Snowe. In 2007, she co-sponsored a bill with Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh that demanded troop re-deployments in Iraq unless the Iraqi government met certain benchmarks. Unlike McCain who voted against the Bush tax cuts and then changed his mind, Snowe has gone the other way, supporting the 2001 round of cuts but opposing Bush's request for further cuts in 2003. She is pro-choice on abortion but she also supported giving $100 million to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which is the first step the left is taking away from NARAL-inspired orthodoxy.

Would she join Obama on a Democratic Party ticket? Hard to know. She began her career as an aide to Republican congressman William Cohen who went on to serve as Secretary of Defense in Bill Clinton's second term. Surely, the prospect of serving in the minority in the Senate is growing less attractive as it becomes clear the GOP is headed for a shellacking at the polls this autumn. (This morning's Washington Post shows how it is possible that the Democrats may get 60 votes in the Senate, denying Snowe and other moderates the decisive role they have enjoyed.) And, she could be the first female vice-president in the nation's history, a post that has in recent years become as consequential as the personal chemistry between #1 and #2 permits. If she and Obama get along just fine, she would have every reason to take it.

Maine is a small state and it is looking blue already. But, geography is over-stated as a rationale for choosing a Veep. John Edwards did not deliver North Carolina in 2004 after all. Obama should follow the model of Bill Clinton in 1992. Instead of looking for geographic or ideological balance, Clinton's choice of Al Gore reinforced the image he wanted to project of himself: young, southern, New Democrat. Obama could similarly tell the nation a lot about himself by his choice. In picking Olympia Snowe, he would tell the nation that he really means it when he says he is tired of partisan bickering and scorched-earth politics, that it is time we give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not share our ideological blinders, that only by getting along can we get anything done.

Michael Sean Winters

In the latest issue of The New Republic, an article by Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, attacks the concept of "human dignity," one of the central ideas of Catholic social teaching, indeed of contemporary Catholic moral theology. His point seems to be that "dignity" is not only a slippery concept, but intellectually dishonest. This was one of those articles (rare in TNR) that was supposed to elucidate some element of Catholicism that was so lacking in any understanding of Catholic theology that it was hard to finish. His article is called "The Stupidity of Dignity." You can find it:here

As an example, here's one of Mr. Pinker's main objections. Note the way he uses the term "dignity."

.....Second, dignity is fungible. The Council [The President's Council on Bioethics] and [the] Vatican treat dignity as a sacred value, never to be compromised. In fact, every one of us voluntarily and repeatedly relinquishes dignity for other goods in life. Getting out of a small car is undignified. Having sex is undignified. Doffing your belt and spread- eagling to allow a security guard to slide a wand up your crotch is undignified. Most pointedly, modern medicine is a gantlet of indignities. Most readers of this article have undergone a pelvic or rectal examination, and many have had the pleasure of a colonoscopy as well. We repeatedly vote with our feet (and other body parts) that dignity is a trivial value, well worth trading off for life, health, and safety......

But voluntary relinquishments of dignity are not the point. Involuntary ones are. The fetus does not voluntarily choose to relinquish life. The worker in the developing world is not voluntarily denied a living wage. The child living in a slum does not voluntarily choose hunger. The handicapped person does not voluntarily choose to be discriminated against. The nursing-home patient does not voluntarily choose to be treated inhumanely. The torture victim does not voluntarily choose physical agony. The victim of genocide does not voluntarily choose death.

This is quite different from getting out of a small car. In Catholic social teaching, human dignity has little to do with occasionally looking "undignified" or "silly." It is about the inviolable value and worth of every human being, who is created by God. But this foundational concept in human rights is not something that appeals simply to Catholics, or Christians, or even simply to believers. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly, "Human rights are increasingly being presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of international relations. At the same time, the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as guarantees safeguarding human dignity."

To his credit, Mr. Pinker says that those who use the concept may not always be expressing the teaching in its fullness. Nonetheless, his article betrays a misunderstanding of understanding of the concept itself, and of its use in the world of Christian morality. You want to say to the writer: Let me get this straight, you're against the dignity of the human person?

Moral theologians, please weigh in.

James Martin, SJ

We will continue the examination of abortion politics this year in the next few days. But, the results from last night's election were so stunning, we need to shine a spotlight on them this morning.

No, not West Virginia. It should surprise no one that Clinton, with 100% name recognition and a state demographically in line with her base of support, beat Obama in a state he had conceded to her already and in which he barely campaigned.

The real news was from Mississippi's First Congressional district where Democrat Travis Childers beat Republican Greg Davis by a margin of 54%-46%. Childers is no Barack Obama. He is adamantly pro-gun and pro-life, for example. Voters did not buy Davis's efforts to tie Childers to Obama and his victory is a shocker. This is a district that George W. Bush carried in 2004 with 62% of the vote.

The Mississippi race comes on the heels of a similar contest in Louisiana, where the GOP also tried to tie the Democrat to Obama. There, Democrats picked up a congressional seat in a district that went for Bush in 2004 with 59%. Earlier in the year, in the seat of former Speaker of the House Danny Hastert in Illinois, Democrats also picked up the seat. In the Illinois contest, there was no effort by the GOP to tag the Democratic candidate as an Obama clone.

Republicans have a big, big problem on their hand. As the economy worsens and the Iraq war muddles through its sixth year, voters want a change. And the candidate who most embodies change, who has campaigned as a change agent all year, is about to become the Democratic nominee. If the GOP tries to distance itself from Bush's unpopularity, it will be harder to energize their base which still loves the President. If they don't distance themselves from Bush, Independents will flock to the Democrats seeking change.

On top of the message problem, the GOP has a near-desperate money problem also. John McCain has raised some 80 million dollars. Barack Obama is north of 200 million dollars. And the two parties congressional campaign committees, that help fund congressional races, show a similar disparity. The Democrats had $44 million in the bank according to their first-quarter reports, while the Republicans had $7 million. In most close house races, an extra million dollars or two of television advertising or direct-mail can make the difference.

Karl Rove is the man most responsible for putting the GOP in this quandary. His political strategy was based on energizing the base and building up, with a view towards getting 51% of the vote. If this meant polarizing the country, he seemed not to care. The Democrat most clearly aligned with a similar strategy, the person who first dubbed a campaign office the "war room," Hillary Clinton, has not done much better than Rove's political progeny this year.

The challenges the nation faces require a more far-reaching strategy, a political effort to stop the polarization and bring people together to solve some of the previously intractable problems. As luck would have it, the Democratic nominee has made that the other central theme of his campaign. It is not shaping up to be a good year to be running as a Republican.

Michael Sean Winters

Within my large Catholic family exists a definite difference of opinion about the correct way to choose godparents. My mother still maintains, many years later, that my husband and I slighted certain of my brothers and sisters by not asking them to be godparents to our daughters. My husband and I, on the other hand, believe that godparents should at least be practicing Catholics. The marrow of the question, that I suspect is debated in other Catholic families, concerns the definition of godparent. Is it an honorary title? Or is it of spiritual significance?

In the olden days, a godparent was charged with the role of religious educator in the event that some tragedy befell the parents before their formative work was through. By job description, godparents were Catholic believers. Possibly, they were also related. But as we have become less committed to the whole concept of religious education as a primarily parental task, the duty of the godparent has devolved into that of material benefactor: the one who gives the extra-special birthday gifts.

My husband and I chose godparents who were people of faith, who were role models of a Catholic life and sensibility, and who were approachable and openhearted. We have always wanted the godparents of our children to be more than lifelong secret Santas. Some are family members; some are not. Over the years, some have been spiritually present to our children, and some have not, proving, I suppose, that as long as people change, no method of choosing godparents is foolproof.

Valerie Schultz