These duties have long been part of his job description. Meeting with leaders from the world’s booming evangelical and Pentecostal flocks?

Not so much.

However, recent ecumenical contacts by this high-profile representative of the Moscow Patriarchate is evidence that times are changing. Time after time, during meetings with evangelical leaders and others here in America, Hilarion has stressed that it is time for Orthodox leaders to cooperate with traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants and others who are trying to defend ancient moral truths in the public square.

“I am here in order to find friends and in order to find allies in our common combat to defend Christian values,” said the 44-year-old archbishop, who became a monk after serving in the Soviet army. He also speaks six languages, holds an Oxford University doctorate in philosophy and is an internationally known composer of classical music.

For too long, Orthodox leaders have remained silent. The goal now, he said, is to find ways to cooperate with other religious groups that want to “keep the traditional lines of Christian moral teaching, who care about the family, who care about such notions as marital fidelity, as giving birth to and bringing up children and in the value of human life from conception until natural death.”

On this occasion earlier in the year, Hilarion was preaching from the pulpit of the 5,000-member Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, a conservative congregation that remains part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which recently approved the ordination of noncelibate gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

While in Dallas, Metropolitan Hilarion’s public schedule included meetings at Dallas Theological Seminary, a prominent institution among many of America’s most conservative evangelical leaders. He has also, during the first half of the year, met with nationally known evangelical leaders in New York, Washington, D.C., and at Princeton University.

In a recent interview with Christianity Today, one of evangelicalism’s flagship publications, the archbishop said it is crucial for all churches — including Eastern Orthodox churches — to expand their work into public life, even if this creates controversy in some quarters.

“Very often nowadays our church will publicly express positions on what’s happening in the country,” he said. “Some people ask, ‘Why does the church interfere? It’s not their business.’ We believe that the church can express its opinion on all aspects of human life. We do not impose our opinions on the people, but we should be free to express them. And people will have to choose whether to follow or not to follow, whether to listen to what we say or to ignore it.”

The archbishop’s statements were especially significant and timely because of a related conflict now raging in the Orthodox Church in America, which has Russian roots.

A major cause of the controversy was the decision by the church’s leader, Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen, to privately endorse The Manhattan Declaration, a document produced by a coalition of conservative Christians that focuses on abortion, euthanasia, sexual morality and religious liberty issues. Numerous Catholic bishops and several other Orthodox leaders have also signed as private citizens, not in their roles as church officials.

At the very least, this bitter dispute has demonstrated that some OCA leaders are opposed to public stands on hot-button political issues, especially any that proclaim the church’s teachings on sexuality. Some prefer isolation and silence.

However, Metropolitan Hilarion, in his taped sermon in Dallas, said it is shocking to see churches divided by “what hitherto seemed unthinkable — namely marked differences among Christians in their understanding of moral law. … There has surfaced a desire to revise, or to be more precise, to adjust, the unambiguous commandments of God to any manifestation of human fancy, a trend that has spread out with the speed of a cancer. …

“Maybe this is one of the reasons why so many families break, why so many marriages end up with divorce, why so many children are raised without a father or a mother and why the birthrates in many countries have become so low. … Family is no longer a primary value to many young people. This is a tragedy of our times and this is a challenge that we can face together.”

“The good things in life aren’t things. They are people. They are values. They are our birthrights,” concluded Speaker of the House John Boehner, who also mentioned his childhood in a Catholic family with 12 children. “For when it’s all said and done, we are but mere mortals doing God’s work here on Earth. Put a better way — no, put the best way: remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

The speech was low key, but there were tensions behind the scenes.

Boehner’s appearance drew a firm, but civil, letter of protest from 80-plus Catholic academics who accused him of dissenting from essential church teachings because of his role in Republican attempts to cut or reshape a number of government safety-net programs.

“From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor,” stated the letter. “Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.”

This protest drew clear parallels to an earlier battle, when 80-plus bishops, numerous academics and many Catholic pro-lifers protested the University of Notre Dame’s decision to grant President Barack Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree. This earlier coalition insisted that honoring a strong supporter of abortion rights violated a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy stating: “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Thus, Catholic progressives were saying that if it was controversial to honor the president, a liberal Protestant who disagrees with many Catholic moral teachings, it also should be controversial to honor Boehner, a Catholic whose approach to economic issues angers many activists and almost certainly some bishops. Meanwhile, it also helps to know that the coalition that protested the Boehner honor included some academics with consistent records of dissent against church teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control, the ordination of women and other doctrinal issues.

The bottom line: Who gets to say who is, or who is not, a “dissenter” against church doctrines?

Another skirmish took place soon after the Boehner address, when New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan — president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — wrote a friendly letter Rep. Paul Ryan, the mastermind of the GOP budget. He praised the Catholic congressman for his “attention to the guidance of Catholic social justice in the current delicate budget considerations in Congress.”

While not endorsing Ryan’s work, the archbishop stressed that caring for the poor was not a matter for state action, alone. Thus, he affirmed Ryan for noting “Pope John Paul’s comments on the limits of what he termed the ‘Social Assistance State.’ “

A political group called Catholics United immediately issued a fiery press release under the headline, “Catholics Ask Archbishop Dolan: What Anti-Poverty Programs Would Jesus Cut?” The group claimed the New York prelate’s comments “have confused Church teaching” and urged him to recant.

Two things are certain in these ongoing debates, noted Stephen Krason, president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists and a political scientist at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. The Vatican has repeatedly stated its opposition to abortion in the strongest possible terms. Catholics also live under an urgent mandate to help the poor and needy.

The problem is that some Catholics are “treating specific government programs as if they are the embodiment of Catholic teachings,” he said. “They are confusing criticism of the effectiveness of some government programs with criticism of the absolute teachings of the Catholic faith. …

” We must serve the poor. There is no doubt about that. But within the realm of Catholic orthodoxy, there are a number of ways that we can pursue this moral imperative. The Catholic Church has not endorsed a particular political approach as to how we are supposed to go about doing that work.”

For the few who didn’t catch it online, the ad features a worried pastor — in a clerical collar — who has empty pews and too many unpaid bills. Thus, he prays for inspiration and God responds with the sound of crunching chips and fizzing soda.

Soon hungry souls — Jewish, Amish and Hare Krishna included — are lining up in church for Doritos and Pepsi MAX in a way that suggests Holy Communion.

The brands are no surprise, since Media Wave Productions of Philadelphia produced “Feed Your Flock” for PepsiCo’s annual “Crash the Super Bowl” contest, in which flocks of folks hope to win $1 million if their creation finishes No. 1 in USA Today’s Ad Meter rankings. The chips-and-soda communion entry didn’t qualify for a Super Bowl airing and has since vanished from YouTube and other sites after waves of protests by Catholics and others.

“It’s hard to imagine such an ad being created only a few decades ago,” noted Shane Rosenthal of the White Horse Inn weblog. “The trivialization of the sacred in this piece is nothing less than astounding. And that’s just it. There isn’t anything sacred anymore. Everything’s a joke.”

This offering, however, wasn’t the only attempt at a Super Bowl ad built on religion or politics or both. Controversies of this kind have increased in recent years, with video activists on the cultural right and left doing their share of poking and protesting.

If professional football has become a form of religion, then it isn’t surprising that America’s Christmas Wars over faith in the public square are now followed by Super Bowl Culture Wars in the marketplace.

This year, “Feed Your Flock” wasn’t even the only “Crash the Super Bowl” entry that used a dash of sacrilege. In “Party Crashers,” another entry now on YouTube, God and Jesus make a scene at a party by eating all the Doritos. They are asked to leave and, with a snap, Jesus miraculously refills the empty snack bag. “Let’s go, Dad,” he says.

Several other ads rejected by the Fox Sports Media Group this year featured religious and political content that was too hot to be allowed into the Super Bowl ad wars with the heavyweights like Bud Light, GoDaddy.com and Snickers.

* In one, two curious football fans turn to the Bible after spotting “John 3:16” written in the black patches under a star player’s eyes. The network said the Fixed Point Foundation video contained too much “religious doctrine.”

* Self-proclaimed “conservative comedian” Richard Belfry also failed in an attempt to air a commercial for his “Jesus Hates Obama” online store that sells T-shirts and other items with his trademark slogan. Belfry said a circle of private investors agreed to purchase a 30-second Super Bowl slot — which usually sell for about $3 million.

* Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry is attempting a novel approach, going so far as to register as a Democratic Party candidate for the White House so that he could insist that networks air his graphic video because of a campaign advertising loophole in existing FCC regulations. Few other opponents of abortion have taken his side.

This is not a new story. Before the 2009 Super Bowl, CatholicVoter.com failed in an attempt to air “Imagine,” an ad featuring a sonogram video of an unborn child matched with text offering thanks that the difficult family circumstances surrounding the young Barack Obama did not prevent his birth. Last year, Focus on the Family was successful with “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life,” an ad focused on missionary Pam Tebow and her decision to endure a risky pregnancy before giving birth to Tim, the future Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback.

These media conflicts are not connected with the tough Constitutional issues that drive the church-state conflicts that have become so common in recent decades, noted J. Brent Walker, head of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. Nevertheless, these faith-based controversies about Super Bowl advertisements — whether silly, satirical or dead serious — seem to be stirring similar public emotions.

“If we lived in a culture in which no one cared much about religion,” he said, “then people wouldn’t get so passionate about these things. But that wouldn’t be America, would it?”

Although weakened by his long struggle with Alzheimer’s disease, the founder of the Peace Corps and other projects for the needy attended the first Archdiocese of Washington “White Mass” for children and adults with disabilities. One last time, he stood with those touched by the Special Olympics and the work of his wife, the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver.

“Sarge’s knowledge of God’s love … was the structure that supported his public life. From this faith, hope and love flowed his thirst for justice and peace and the courage to speak for those who had no voice,” said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, at Shriver’s funeral Mass last week in Potomac, Md. “He spoke not from political expediency or correctness, but from an abiding sense of conviction.”

The statesman’s life was shaped by many of the 20th century’s most powerful forces, from the Great Depression in his childhood to World War II combat at Guadalcanal. His marriage took him deep into the Kennedy family, which launched his work, yet limited his political career.

Shriver took on global poverty for his brother-in-law, President John F. Kennedy, and helped lead the domestic War on Poverty for President Lyndon Johnson. Many of the projects he helped launch live on — such as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), Legal Services, Foster Grandparents and Upward Bound.

Those who worked with Shriver, noted former President Bill Clinton at the funeral, were left asking this question: “Could anybody be as good as he seemed to be? Come on now. … Every other man in this church feels about two inches tall right now.”

Where did Shriver’s drive come from? Son Mark Shriver stressed that his father’s motivations were never strictly political, but were rooted in the first item on the daily calendar of his life. Wherever he went, whether with family or on business, the first question he asked upon arrival was the time and location of the nearest morning Mass. The Shriver patriarch was buried with his rosary in his fingers.

“Daddy was joyful ‘til the day he died and I think that joy was deeply rooted in his love affair with God,” said Mark Shriver. “Daddy loved God and God loved him right back. … Daddy let go. God was in control and, oh, what a relationship they had.”

While his Catholicism helped Shriver as an activist and volunteer, it marginalized him in some politic circles. As the years passed, son Timothy Shriver said he could see that his father’s commitments made many people uncomfortable. At times, his faith “made him an outlier. He was too public with all of that spirituality.”

In 1972, Shriver stepped in and became his party’s emergency choice as Sen. George McGovern’s running mate in a long-shot run race for the White House. It helped that Shriver was a political progressive and a traditional Catholic. Still, there hasn’t been another pro-life Democrat on the national ticket since Shriver.

During the 1992 Democratic National Convention, both Sargent and Eunice Shriver joined several other prominent Democrats in signing a public document that openly rejected their party’s stance on abortion.

“To establish justice and to promote the general welfare, America does not need the abortion license,” it stated. “What America needs are policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers AND their children, both before AND after birth. … We can choose to extend once again the mantle of protection to all members of the human family, including the unborn.”

Thus, Shriver’s human family included the unborn and the mentally handicapped, AIDS patients in Africa and the urban poor, abandoned children and the elderly who need medical care.

“No one can deny that his liberal Catholicism was a Christian politics: Admirable, comprehensive, and at the test, consistent,” noted Catholic writer Ross Douthat, an op-ed columnist and blogger for the New York Times.

“That test was abortion, where Shriver was one of the few Great Society liberals to remain a pro-life liberal as well. … Together with his wife, Eunice, he endured as the embodiment of a liberal road not taken on that issue. For that, as for everything he did in public life, he will be sorely missed.”

Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin almost stole the show with a political shot at President Barack Obama, telling her fans, “You too know that we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor!”

But there was only one African-American preacher present whose last name was spelled K-I-N-G. There was only one orator who could infuriate pundits simply by standing with Beck on the 47th anniversary of her martyred uncle’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Tears of rage? Tears of joy? The Rev. Alveda King knew she would cause both by linking the Rev. Martin Luther King’s classic cadences with the religious and cultural issues that loomed over what Beck insisted was a nonpolitical rally. Once a Democrat in the Georgia Legislature, the evangelical minister now leads African-American outreach programs for the Catholic group Priests For Life.

First, she reminded listeners that her “Uncle Martin” had compared America’s promise of equal protection to a check marked “insufficient funds.” But when, she asked, will “we know that the check Uncle Martin spoke of is good?”

“We will know when prayer is once again welcome in the public squares of America and in our schools. We will know when our children are no longer in mortal peril on our streets and in our classrooms, and in the wombs of our mothers,” she said.

“We will know when righteousness rolls down like waters, and justice like a mighty stream. Yes, I too have a dream … that America will repent of the sin of racism and return to honor. I have a dream that white privilege will become human privilege and that people of every ethnic blend will receive everyone as brothers and sisters in the love of God. I have a dream that America will pray, and God will forgive us our sins and revive our land.”

Critics were not kind.

Chatting with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post dismissed Alveda King as a “convenient figurehead or puppet. … She’s a fundamentalist, very conservative Christian. … She’s estranged from the rest of the King family, and from the keepers of his legacy.”

And in a Washington Post essay before the rally, Martin Luther King III anticipated the coming efforts to embrace the causes now identified with the first family of civil rights. His father’s dream, he stressed, “rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs. … Throughout his life he advocated compassion for the poor, nonviolence, respect for the dignity of all people and peace for humanity.”

For Alveda King, these debates are signs of painful divisions — many of them theological — inside the Civil Rights Movement, black churches and the extended King family. While the late Coretta Scott King supported abortion rights and gay rights, other members of the family have fiercely questioned whether the views of her husband would have evolved in that direction.

One debate, for example, focuses on the significance of the decision by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to accept the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in 1966. Alveda King and other opponents of abortion note that this was six years before Roe v. Wade and only three years after a Planned Parenthood pamphlet warned that, “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

America’s ongoing battles over abortion, insisted Alveda King, are one of many symptoms that her uncle’s work remains unfinished.

“Our material gains seem to be going the way of our moral losses,” she said, in her Aug. 28 sermon. “We are still suffering from the great evil divide of racism. Our children are suffering in failing school systems. Our sons and daughters are being incarcerated at astronomical rates. Sickness, disease and poverty of the spirit, soul and body are plaguing our communities. The procreative foundation of marriage is being threatened, and the wombs of our mothers have become places where the blood of our children is shed in a ‘womb war’ that threatens the fabric of our society. …

“Yet, we are not without hope. Faith, hope and love are not dead in America. Hallelujah.”

For example, how far could doctors go to relieve a dying patient’s pain?

Months before his death in 1958, the pope wrote: “Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by means of narcotics (when it is demanded by a medical indication) permitted, by religion and morality, to the patient and the doctor (even at the approach of death and when one foresees that the administration of narcotics will shorten life)?” His answer was “yes,” if that was what it took to truly relieve suffering.

Pius XII also knew that doctors were pondering ways to apply ancient truths to issues raised by new technologies, said Ian Dowbiggin, author of “Life, Death, God and Medicine: A Concise History of Euthanasia.” The historian from the University of Prince Edward Island spoke to media professionals gathered at this week’s G8 “World Religions Summit” at the University of Winnipeg.

Many of these puzzles remain, which is why ethicists still study another 1957 address by Pius XII to the International Congress of Anesthesiologists, in which he asked when it was necessary to make extraordinary efforts to resuscitate patients.

The pope concluded that if it “appears that the attempt at resuscitation constitutes … such a burden for the family that one cannot in all conscience impose it upon them, they can lawfully insist that the doctor should discontinue these attempts, and the doctor can lawfully comply. There is not involved here a case of direct disposal of the life of the patient, nor of euthanasia in any way: this would never be licit. Even when it causes the arrest of circulation, the interruption of attempts at resuscitation is never more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life.”

Dowbiggin stressed that Pius XII was already engaging complex issues that continue to impact debates — in Canada, the United States and elsewhere — about legalizing physician-assisted suicide. While this decade has seen a “perfect storm” of conflicts about a “right to die,” it is essential that citizens, clergy and public officials study the history of euthanasia before making policy decisions that will touch millions of lives in the future, he said.

“There are deep moral and religious issues at stake in debates about physician-assisted suicide, which is why religious believers have always been involved,” said Dowbiggin. “But what we are hearing today are prominent voices that say that religious people must keep their ideas to themselves, because religion is a private thing — period — and must not affect public life. If that idea is accepted, that’s a major step toward the acceptance of physician-assisted suicide.”

The word “euthanasia” comes from two Greek words that simply mean “good death,” noted the historian. For centuries, Catholics and others have argued that a “good death” is one that is as pain-free and dignified as possible. Thus, religious groups have been at the forefront of efforts to offer in-home hospice care.

However, several trends have aided efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide, especially scientific advances that have increased the “graying of America,” said Dowbiggin. Thus, people are living longer lives, which also means they are more likely to face lengthy battles with cancer and neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

Rising health-care costs have also affected “quality of life” debates. After all, as President Barack Obama told the New York Times, the “chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.” The stakes are rising.

Meanwhile, the Hemlock Society has evolved into End of Life Choices, an organization that merged with Compassion in Dying to form Compassion & Choices. Physician-assisted suicide became the “right to die” which has now evolved into calls for a legal “self deliverance” option.

If religious leaders want to keep taking part in these policy discussions, said Dowbiggin, “they must have something positive to say. It is not enough to just keep saying ‘no.’ … They need a vision of what the ‘good death’ looks like. They need to say that this is the goal of all end-of-life care — people making informed moral decisions about hospice and other forms of care that are right for themselves and for their families.”

In that influential 1960 address, Kennedy boldly proclaimed: “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

“Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance … with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”

And so it came to pass that — politically speaking — JFK begat the Kennedy dynasty, which begat Mario Cuomo, who begat Geraldine Ferraro, who begat Joseph Biden, who begat Rudy Giuliani, who begat John Kerry, who begat Arnold Schwarzenegger, who begat Nancy Pelosi and so forth and so on.

Looking back, it’s clear that Kennedy’s high-risk visit to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association changed Catholic political life. That’s why one of America’s most outspoken Catholic leaders recently seized an opportunity to deliver a very different message to another Protestant audience in Houston.

Kennedy’s speech was “sincere, compelling, articulate — and wrong,” claimed Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, at a Houston Baptist University forum on faith and public life. “His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.”

The key, argued the archbishop, is that Kennedy did more than endorse the separation of church and state. He did more than plead for religious tolerance in the public square, after generations of tensions between Catholics and Protestants.

Ultimately, that Kennedy did was pledge to separate his faith from his personal conscience, thus building a high wall down the center of his own heart, mind and soul. How is it possible for Christians to do this, Chaput asked, when dealing with profoundly moral issues such as health care, immigration, abortion, poverty, education, religious liberty, family life, sexual identity and matters of war and peace?

“Real Christian faith is always personal,” he said, “but it’s never private.”

Political and religious leaders have been debating the meaning of Kennedy’s words ever since he spoke them. This was especially true during the 2008 presidential race when critics dissected the beliefs of several candidates who openly discussed their religious beliefs — such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and, of course, the future president, Barack Obama.

During a Fordham University forum on “The Kennedy Moment,” political theorist William Galston of the Brookings Institution said that the key to the 1960 address was the candidate’s bold insistence that his private spiritual views should not even be discussed because they “do not influence his views on public matters.”

Kennedy also endorsed a “separation between democracy and God,” noted Galston, former senior domestic policy adviser for President Bill Clinton. In fact, he used the word “God” only once, in a reference to the presidential oath of office.

This speech “could have been given by a nonbeliever. Indeed — deep breath — I rather suspect it was,” said Galston. “At the very least, there is no indication that JFK regarded the church as having any rightful authority over his public conduct.”

For Chaput, it’s impossible to concede that the teachings of the Catholic faith should have nothing to do with the public lives, vocations and actions of individuals who continue to call themselves faithful Catholics.

Nevertheless, 50 years after Kennedy’s speech in Houston “we have more Catholics in national public office than ever before. But I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work or who even feel obligated to try,” said the archbishop.

“At least one of the reasons for it is this: Too many Catholics confuse their personal opinions with a real Christian conscience. Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy, the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don’t really believe. Maybe it’s different in Protestant circles. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I say, ‘I doubt it.’ “

Nevertheless, it still makes news when believers vow to act on this conviction.

“Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” proclaimed a coalition of Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical Protestants on Nov. 20, in their 4,700-word “Manhattan Declaration.”

“There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. … King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.”

Thus, the declaration’s authors vowed to reject “any edict that purports to compel our institutions” to compromise on centuries of doctrine about marriage, human sexuality and the sanctity of human life. The text was written by evangelical activist Charles Colson, church historian Timothy George of the evangelical Beeson Divinity School and the Catholic scholar Robert George of Princeton University.

The Los Angeles Times offered an especially brutal evaluation of the text, claiming that it offered a “specious invocation of King” and that its logic was ultimately “irresponsible and dangerous.”

But the editorial board reserved its strongest words for the Catholics bishops who signed, asking if they considered “how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn? Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don’t like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?”

So far, 19 Catholic bishops and archbishops have signed, including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and the Catholic shepherds in Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix and Pittsburgh, among other cities.

At mid-week, the project (ManhattanDeclaration.org) had attracted about 230,000 endorsements, including those of famous evangelicals such as Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, Evangelicals for Social Action Director Ron Sider and Bishop Henry Jackson, Jr., a Pentecostal leader in the Washington, D.C., area. Orthodox leaders who have signed include Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen of the Orthodox Church in America and Wichita (Kan.) Bishop Basil Essey of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese.

Responding to claims that the declaration is merely a partisan attack on President Barack Obama, Colson noted that it states that in the Roe v. Wade era, “elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to the ‘Culture of Death.’ ”

On sexuality, the document stresses that some people are “disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. … We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness.”

While nothing in the Manhattan Declaration is truly new, arguments about its call for civil disobedience will help draw sharper lines between traditional believers and the powers that be in an increasingly diverse and secular America, said Dr. H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., senior editor of the Christian Bioethics journal at Oxford University. He is professor emeritus at the Baylor College of Medicine and a philosophy professor at Rice University.

“This document is the product of a political coalition, but it’s not political in the same sense that the tax code is political,” said Engelhardt, who is advising several Eastern Orthodox leaders who are studying the text. “This is political in the sense that these Christians are working together on certain issues that have moral and public implications.”

The reality is that its authors believe there are “certain God-ordained truths” that continue to have authority and weight in American life, he said. The big question: Are they right or wrong?

“You could make a case,” concluded Engelhardt, “that anyone who recites the Nicene Creed, or anyone who believes that God has established any requirements for how we are supposed to live our lives can now be called a Fundamentalist in the context of this secular culture. … That is what this debate is actually about.”

This has been a consistent pattern in recent surveys and it can be seen in most pews, from conservative evangelicals to liberal mainline Protestants, said Greg Smith, senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. This pattern is especially clear among American Catholics.

“The people who attend worship services more often are going to be opposed to abortion and those who rarely or never attend are going to support legalized abortion,” he said. “You go once a week? It’s going to be about two-thirds against. Rarely if ever? It’s about two-thirds in favor. …

“That division is still there. But the big news is that both of these groups have been moving in the same direction for the past year or so. We’re seeing support for abortion rights weakening across the board.”

A new Pew Forum survey found that the percentage of Americans saying they believe abortion should be “legal in all/most cases” fell from 54 to 47 percent during a single year. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who said they believe abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases” rose from 40 to 44 percent. The “undecided” camp grew from 6 to 9 percent of those polled.

“The nation remains pretty evenly divided,” said Smith. “However, what we can see is that support for legalized abortion is weakening in many groups and it’s stalled in others. … How much people practice their faith is a crucial factor in this.”

Support for abortion rights remains high among American Jews, but the latest Pew survey showed a drop from 86 percent in favor a year ago to 76 percent now. Support among Americans with no religious affiliation at all fell from 71 percent in favor of legalized abortion to 68 percent.

One of the most dramatic shifts came among members of white mainline Protestants — liberal churches that have consistently supported abortion rights. The numbers were especially dramatic when church attendance was factored into the equation, noted Smith.

Support for abortion rights among mainliners who attended church once a week fell from 54 to 42 percent, while support among those who said they attended less often than that fell from 68 to 60 percent.

To no one’s surprise, opposition to abortion rights among evangelical Protestants remains high, but the numbers have risen even higher in the past year. Church attendance is a major factor, with 79 percent of white evangelicals who worship once a week saying abortion should be “illegal in all/most cases.” A year ago, 73 percent took that stance. Among white evangelicals who go to church less often, opposition to abortion rose a dramatic 12 percent — from 47 to 58 percent.

The contrast between regular and occasional worshippers was also dramatic among white Catholics. Opposition to abortion rights rose from 57 to 67 percent among Catholics who reported going to Mass once a week. Among those who said they attended Mass less often, support for legalized abortion declined slightly during the past year, from 65 to 62 percent.

These numbers are logical because Catholics who are active in the church are exposed more often to sermons, prayers and ministries that incarnate church teachings on the sanctity of human life, said Deirdre McQuade of the pro-life office at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Those who are less invested in the sacraments — attending church, receiving the Eucharist and going to confession — may have less access to the truth about life, and fewer resources to believe and accept it,” she said.

In the end, stressed Smith, this survey underlines two realities. First, there is little evidence that America’s debates about abortion are fading. Second, it’s clear that religious faith and practice remains one of the most crucial dividing lines on this issue.

“It’s important to realize that millions of Americans see themselves as caught in the middle” on abortion issues, he said. “Take those mainline Protestants, for example. Even though it seems that their support for legalized abortion is weakening, they probably see themselves as moving from one position in the middle to another position in the middle. They may be changing what they believe, but not very much.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent the guidelines to the leader of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. However, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick chose not to share the letter with America’s bishops, which kept its blunt contents secret — until a leak in Italy.

“The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin,” warned the letter, adding that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose” civil laws and judicial decisions that “authorize or promote” these acts. At the same time, it explained that there “may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not … with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

On the central issue, the guidelines said when a person’s “formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

Months later, the letter’s author — Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — became Pope Benedict XVI. There is no evidence his views have changed.

However, the status of politicians who clash with Rome remains controversial, especially when Catholics occupy strategic positions on the U.S. Supreme Court, in the president’s cabinet and on Capital Hill.

Tensions from the Ratzinger letter were also felt during the public events marking the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of the most symbolic and influential Catholics in American political history.

Catholics on both sides of the aisle dissected the rites, seeking signs of favor or disfavor. The outspoken Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston presided in the funeral Mass, but played a small role. Was that important? Where were the region’s other bishops? Were television crews told to avoid camera angles that would reveal who received Communion?

But the most symbolic moment occurred during the graveside service in Arlington National Cemetery. That’s when the now retired Cardinal McCarrick — a close friend of Kennedy — read the dying senator’s private appeal for a final papal blessing.

“I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path,” wrote Kennedy. “I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I’ve worked to welcome the immigrant, fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war. …

“I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings.”

McCarrick read excerpts from a Vatican reply, keeping some parts private. The final lines, written by a papal aide, were simple: “Commending you and the members of your family to the loving intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord.”

Kennedy’s letter raised a familiar and haunting question: Are the Catholic doctrines on the sanctity of every human life, from conception to natural death, part of the church’s “fundamental teachings” or not?

While praising the senator’s career, McCarrick added what was almost certainly a gentle reference to his clashes with the church on abortion, gay rights and other doctrinal issues. The bottom line: Kennedy maintained a 100 percent pro-abortion-rights voting record, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America.

“They called him, ‘The Lion of the Senate,’ and indeed that is what he was,” said the former shepherd of the Washington archdiocese. “His roar, and his zeal for what he believed, made a difference in our nation’s life. Sometimes, of course, we who were his friends and had affection for him would get mad at him when he roared at what we believed was the wrong side of an issue.”