“She was preeminently pro-life, against abortion and there to protect and underscore the dignity of every person,” noted O’Malley, praising the founder of the Special Olympics.

When Sen. Edward Kennedy died soon after that, the cardinal strongly defended his own decision to preside at his funeral — despite the senator’s public stands against church church’s teachings on abortion and sexuality.

“We must show those who do not share our belief about life that we care about them,” O’Malley argued. “We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts. We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss.”

The cardinal didn’t deliver these highly personal messages from the pulpit of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. Instead, he posted them on “Cardinal Sean’s Blog” at BostonCatholic.org — his own multimedia journal.

O’Malley isn’t alone. A few other bishops and priests have made the jump into cyberspace. However, there will be many more bloggers wearing Roman collars if Pope Benedict XVI has his way. In a message addressed straight to priests — bypassing the offices of many cautious bishops — the pope has urged them to start spreading and defending the faith online.

“The world of digital communication, with its almost limitless expressive capacity, makes us appreciate all the more Saint Paul’s exclamation: ‘Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel,’ ” said the pope, in a message released on Jan. 24, the feast of St. Francis de Sales, the patron saint of journalists.

“The spread of multimedia communications and its rich ‘menu of options’ might make us think it sufficient simply to be present on the Web, or to see it only as a space to be filled,” argued Benedict, whose online presence has risen with the birth of Pope2You.net and the Vatican YouTube channel.

“Yet priests can rightly be expected to be present in the world of digital communications as faithful witnesses to the Gospel, exercising their proper role as leaders of communities which increasingly express themselves with the different ‘voices’ provided by the digital marketplace. Priests are thus challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources (images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites) which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis.”

For tech-savvy Catholics, it’s stunning news that the 82-year-old Benedict used the word “blog” in the first place, noted Rocco Palmo, the Philadelphia-based scribe whose “Whispers in the Loggia” weblog is a global hot spot for Vatican news and gossip. The tone of this papal message, he added, is relentlessly positive — a striking departure from the Vatican’s many downbeat messages about media in the past.

The bottom line, noted Palmo, via email, is that “against the backdrop of the widespread American experience of mass closings of parishes, declines in attendance, etc., we’re learning that one thing that helps folks want to keep staying close is when … the church realizes that one hour on Sunday just isn’t enough, that people are looking for something to help keep them connected and inspired through the week. So I think Benedict is calling priests to see that they have a crucial role in that, and to see this not as some sort of hobby or personal indulgence, but a vitally important extension of their ministry. Anything that bears fruit to that end lifts all boats.”

Catholic leaders will, however, need to be careful when working in this chaotic, even deceptive, online world.

After all, some early reports about Benedict’s message about digital media mentioned that Vatican officials marked the occasion by opening an official Twitter feed — @vatican_va — complete with the Vatican coat of arms.

It was a fake. Catholic News Service soon established that the Vatican has not taken up tweeting — yet.

“The whole episode has prompted some Vatican media people to remark, ‘It wasn’t us — but it should have been us,’ ” noted John Thavis, the CNS bureau chief in Rome. “So don’t be surprised to see a real Vatican Twitter feed in the future.”

Send article as PDF to

That isn’t how the Internet Evangelism Day team sees things. It notes that “over 1 billion people use the Web,” the “Internet is changing the world” and “God is using the Web to transform lives.”

“The Internet has become a 21st century Roman road, marketplace, theater, backyard fence and office drinks machine,” proclaims the site’s webmasters. “Web evangelism gives believers opportunities to reach people with the Gospel right where they are, just as Jesus and Paul did.”

Tech guru George Gilder knows where the Web evangelists are coming from and offers a hearty “Amen.” He remains convinced that cyberspace is territory that religious leaders have to explore and, hopefully, master.

“The Internet is very good for building communities and, obviously, churches are communities. It allows a particularly charismatic, or brilliant, church leader to reach potential followers not only in his community or in his immediate locality, but all across the country and the world,” said Gilder, the author the trailblazing books “Microcosm” and “Telecosm.”

“This is the power of the Net,” he said. “It can free people from this sort of entrapment in a narrow locality and allow them to find support for their particular faith, wherever it may arise.”

But there’s a fly in the digital ointment. There’s a reason that Gilder’s online “Telecosm Forum” is for subscribers only — he needs to focus his time on serious questions raised by committed readers who are truly interested in the issues he wants to research. Gilder invests his time and energy in this one online flock.

That’s the bottom line: A decade or two down the digital information highway, people who are serious about the Web are learning to invest their time more wisely.

That includes religious leaders, who are as buried in digital junk as everyone else. Many ministers who once were anxious to think outside the local-church box have been stunned at the time commitment this kind of “online ministry” requires.

The good news is that ambitious religious leaders can do 24/7, online, multi-media, interactive ministry at the local, national and even global levels. And the bad news? Users will expect them to build and maintain these 24/7, online, multi-media, interactive ministries at the local, national and even global levels.

This is a mixed blessing for ministers who are already struggling to keep up with the fast-paced realities of life in the flesh-and-blood, analog world. Websites, blogs and email can become curses, as well as blessings.

The Net is, for better and for worse, a tool for interactive communications, stressed Gilder, who is an active churchman. Anything that amplifies speech has the potential to help evangelism and other crucial ministries in most churches, which are communities of believers that need to interact with the world around them in order to survive or thrive.

However, religious leaders need to ask serious questions about the size and shape of the online ministries they attempt, he said. Should forums about sensitive or controversial issues be open to all comers? If a congregation offers an interactive website for people who are asking religious and personal questions, is there anyone with the time and skills to maintain it? Will posting a minister’s online address produce contacts with people who truly need help? Who will screen all those emails?

There’s one more tricky issue that must be addressed. Many believers are highly skilled when it comes to talking to and arguing with other members of their own flocks, using a kind of “preaching to the choir” lingo that is mere gibberish to outsiders. The religious corners of the Web are packed with websites of this kind, which do much to promote insider debates, but little to reach people outside church doors.

“It’s crucial to break out of this kind of parochial language,” said Gilder. “If you are going to try to talk to people in the secular world, you have to have people who actually have the ability to do that kind of work online. …

“It’s quite exciting to actually go out into the wider world. But you have to have something to say and you have to know what you are doing.”

Send article as PDF to

This is especially true when it comes to Anglican battles. Here is her take on the challenge facing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams after U.S. Episcopalians elected Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori as Anglicanism’s first female archbishop and then refused to retreat on homosexual issues.

Will the Anglican Communion shatter, with Third World conservatives pitted against modernists in Europe and America?

“All is not lost,” wrote Gledhill, just before the end of the American church’s 75th General Convention. “A kind of schism might result, but it will not be schism as generally known. Anglicans are great at fudging crises, especially liberal ones. … All Rowan Williams has to do is apply his formidable intellect to the question of how both sides can be kept at the same communion table, albeit at opposite ends.”

Gledhill has a right to her opinions, of course.

But she isn’t just another Anglican with a “weblog,” one of dozens of “bloggers” who flooded the Internet with news, rumors and opinions during the tumultuous events this week in Columbus, Ohio.

Gledhill is the religion correspondent for The Times of London. Thus, she writes waves of regular newspaper stories, as well as columns that mix traditional reporting with her own analysis. And now, blessed by her editors, she writes thousands of words each week at her “blog” — ranging from coverage of theological issues that may be too complex for the regular news pages to personal observations about her own parish and her own faith. She isn’t alone. The Times offers dozens of blogs by reporters covering everything from politics to fashion footwear, from movies to gay family life.

Many editors want their reporters to blog and many others do not. What happens when journalists who are supposed to write unbiased stories about hot issues start airing opinions online that tell readers what they really think? When is a reporter a reporter and when is a reporter a blogger?

This can lead to confusion. A Church Times columnist recently challenged Gledhill’s decision to refer to the Bishop of Chelmsford as an “extreme liberal,” calling it a sign of bias.

“This is a difference of opinion,” wrote Father Giles Fraser, who teaches philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford. “But Ms. Gledhill presents it as if she were seeking a degree of objectivity rather than admitting that she is a campaigner herself. … It isn’t that journalists such as Ruth Gledhill ought to keep their views under wraps. That’s why her weblog is so welcome: it is only when we know where people are coming from that we can learn to play their spin. In order to be empowered as a reader or listener, I want to know more about what journalists believe, not less.”

Actually, said Gledhill, she used the “extreme liberal” label because of the bishop’s role as a patron for Changing Attitude, an important lobby for “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” causes in the church.

When she first started blogging, said Gledhill, it was tempting to dig deep into her personal beliefs and experiences in an attempt to reach out to readers and to offer a form of writing that was completely different from her regular reporting. But it didn’t take long to realize that “this seam was going to run out pretty quick,” she said. She has also learned to pay close attention to the feedback she receives from readers, who can respond directly to her online posts.

After nearly two decades on the religion beat, Gledhill said she welcomes a chance to put more and more news and information on the record in The Times of London, even if it is published in pixels rather than ink.

“I?m never bored by the subject of religion, it was a little restrictive just writing news all the time,” she said. “There were things I so much wanted to say and there was nowhere to say them. I feel completely re-energized by blogging and am slightly addicted to it. I believe, and hope this is a true belief, that it is making me a better reporter because it is making me more accountable, making me think more deeply about what I am reporting and is also, in a strange way, making me more involved, more compassionate.”

Send article as PDF to

But times changed and the high church of journalism was challenged by radio and television news, which was followed by a tsunami of news, rumors, opinions and criticism on 24-7 cable news networks and the Internet. The result has been a subtle change in doctrine at the Times, although the Gray Lady’s motto has stayed the same.

Around-the-clock competition has “caused us to shift our emphasis from information as a commodity and play to different strengths — emphasizing less the breaking facts than the news behind the news, writing more analytically,” said executive editor Bill Keller, speaking at last week’s National College Media Convention.

“We long ago moved from ‘All the News That’s Fit to Print,’ to ‘All the News You Need to Know, and What It Means.’ “

Keller’s address blended confessions about the newspaper industry’s sins with a litany of praise for journalistic virtues. Journalists at the Times, he insisted, still practice what they preach, remaining “agnostic as to where a story may lead” and maintaining standards of accuracy and fairness that prevent the “opinions of our writers and editors from leaching into our news pages.”

However, he also said he believes that “information is not what people crave. What they crave, and need, is judgment — someone they can trust to vouch for the information, dig behind it, and make sense of it.”

The question is whether critics, especially those in religious sanctuaries, will trust Keller’s team to provide an unbiased take on the news and then, as a finale, pass judgment on “what it means,” said former New York Daily News reporter William Proctor, author of “The Gospel According to the New York Times.”

“This intentional change in the motto — even if it won’t be printed by the newspaper — suggests to me that editorializing is being placed on an equal footing with straight news,” he said. The new motto seems “to be saying, ‘We’re recognizing that opinion has a larger role than the editorial or op-ed pages. In fact, opinion now has a place in the news itself.’ “

Meanwhile, critics may remember Keller — who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting in the Soviet Union — as the Times columnist who once called himself a “collapsed Catholic” and lashed out at Pope John Paul II and the Vatican for rejecting female priests, gay rights, legalized abortion and the sexual revolution in general.

The struggle within Catholicism, he wrote, is “part of a larger struggle within the human race, between the forces of tolerance and absolutism. … This is, after all, the church that gave us the Crusades and the Inquisition.”

However, as executive editor, Keller produced a 2005 manifesto urging his staff to improve religion coverage, avoid the misuse of loaded labels such as “religious fundamentalists” and hire qualified journalists who offer a diversity of “religious upbringing and military experience, of region and class.”

Journalists at the Times, he said, must strive to escape “our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation. … This is important to us not because we want to appease believers or pander to conservatives, but because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in.”

This candor is refreshing, said Jay Rosen, who leads New York University’s journalism program and has written a provocative essay entitled “Journalism is Itself a Religion.” The problem is that many journalists want to escape old-fashioned straight news, but they don’t know what to call their new product. It’s hard to distinguish between news “analysis” and “opinion” writing that reflects the beliefs of the writer.

Send article as PDF to

He knows the laws and lingo. Along with his BetaChurch.org colleagues, Merwin believes the World Wide Web can bring people together and spread new ideas. But when it comes to analyzing the impact of the new “information technology” (natives say “IT”) on many churches, he has some doubts.

“Lots of people are jumping into online ministry because they see that everybody else is doing it,” he said, during the 2005 convention of the Gospel Communications Network, a digital coalition of 300-plus ministries.

“That isn’t a very good reason. People need to stop and ask if they have the time and the talent and the energy and the resources to get into all of this. I’ve seen churches pour thousands of dollars into IT projects and then, when they crash and burn, it turns out that nobody was sure what they wanted to do in the first place.”

If this lament sounds familiar, it should. Not that long ago, flocks of businesses and investors lost their analog shirts while riding the cyber waves that rolled across the nation. Prophets of the new order berated doubters who failed to “get it.”

Everyone yearned for the next “Big Thing,” said Mike Atkinson, president of uneekNet.com. The whole economy was going to change. Stores would be swallowed by online start-ups. Newspapers would vanish as “push” technology zapped personalized news — for free — directly to computer screens. Everyone wanted to build “portals” rich with “stickiness” and registered millions of “hits.”

Many religious groups tried to copy the trends, building online sites that resembled grain silos full of information that, when users dug deeper, turned out to be tweaked content from traditional publications. The goal was to draw people into your silo and keep them there, while making sure that the contents of your silo didn’t leak out into anybody else’s silo. Sharing spiritual customers with others would be bad for business.

It was exciting. But ministers had to learn to be careful out there.

“The key is that all of this is about me — me, me, me. It’s about finding what works for me and then giving me what I want,” said Atkinson, who is best known for his work with the Youth Specialties ministry. “That’s the reality of the thing. That’s what the Web is about. … This feeds right into a consumer culture. It forces us to make instantaneous choices, whether they are the right choices or not.”

Millions of people are surfing in cyberspace, looking for connections that will help them find answers, he said. But they are doing this in a marketplace that emphasizes the total freedom of the individual. Online commitments are as binding as the click of a mouse. People are looking for community, but on their own terms.

Atkinson doesn’t think religious leaders should panic. He hopes that they study new forms of digital communication — from Google to Craigslist, from MySpace to Wikipedia — that are built on people sharing information instead of hoarding it. It’s time for more ministries to cooperate, rather than compete, with each other.

“We also have to know that all of this can shape how people think,” he said. “It’s a buyer’s market and people want what they want. … You can end up with people online shopping around and then saying, ‘Hey, that megachurch has this or that neat program and I want it. Let’s move over there.’ And off they go.”

Eventually, this consumer mentality can soak down into the messages that ministries deliver, said Merwin.

The hot word is “postmodernism,” but for many ministries the temptation is older and more fundamental than that. The bottom line is that it’s hard not to give people want they want, to tell customers what they want to hear.

“It’s that attitude that says, ‘You have your thing and I have my thing and that’s OK because it doesn’t really matter what you believe anyway,’ ” he said. “You stay with that and you have to end up with radical individualism and isolationism. You have people leaving one hip church to go to another hip church that does some hip things better than the first one. Where does it end?”

Send article as PDF to

As he ended one recent oration, the sociologist, urban activist and evangelical gadfly fell to his knees, hands raised to heaven.

“I believe Americans must heed this call and turn away from our wicked ways,” said Campolo, who made headlines counseling President Bill Clinton. “We need to turn away from sexual promiscuity, turn away from the consumeristic materialism, turn away from our failure to pay attention to what we have done collectively to poor and weak peoples around the world. …

“Then, let our prayer be that God will hear from heaven, forgive our sins and heal our land.”

Many of the faithful said “amen,” lifted their hands or made the sign of the cross.

Then Campolo froze for a moment, as an hourglass icon hovered in the Romanesque arches of the Church of Fools, the world’s first 3D, interactive, virtual church.

This kind of thing happens when traffic jams the Internet.

The computer-generated “avatar” looked like Campolo and he was delivering a Campolo sermon entitled “Why Many People in the World Hate America.” But Campolo was not controlling his own computer image, since the site’s webmasters were not sure he could master the technology needed to preach online — line by line, gesture by gesture.

Actually, Campolo was at a clergy conference in St. Simons Island, Ga. But he stayed on the telephone with his Philadelphia office staff, which communicated with the Church of Fools in Liverpool, England, through an online instant-messaging program, while one of site’s creators controlled the “pixilated preacher.” The question-and-answer session was especially tricky.

“I wanted Tony to be animated, because that’s the way he is — live,” said Stephen Goddard. “I have known him for years and I know his gestures and style. I was sure I could get our Tony to preach like the real Tony.”

The experimental site — www.ChurchofFools.com — opened its doors on May 11, with help from the Methodist Church of Great Britain and others. The pilot project ends this weekend (Aug. and the future is uncertain. Goddard said he is confident they can keep the doors open — but not as often. The Church of England is also poised to open a digital church of some kind.

So far, volunteers have donated the time and expertise needed to create and run Church of Fools, with most of its $30,000 budget being used to purchase the bandwidth needed for interactive services. Goddard said the goal is to raise $300,000 to cover the next three years and to expand — hopefully including churches in America, China and elsewhere.

It is hard to picture what happens in a “virtual church” without images on a screen. At any one time, 35 worshippers can sign in and create characters that stand, sit or kneel. They can whisper or talk to nearby worshippers, slip into the church crypt for discussions or linger at icons in prayer. Another 1,500 can take part as silent ghosts. Campolo packed the pews.

Participants sang along as the organ played through their speakers, typing phrases from the hymns that seemed meaningful. During the July 28th service, one warden led the global flock in prayer, giving thanks for computers, satellites, bloggers, online friendships and their virtual church.

“Help us to use our networks to do good things,” she said, “to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with you, our God, and to be good neighbors online and off.”

One thing visitors cannot do is jump the virtual altar rail. Early on, an avatar called “Satan” stormed the pulpit and cursed the Anglican bishop of London. That wasn’t cricket. Wardens now have the power to smite the rowdy.

“It only took a day or two to discover that there are lots of people who could not resist the chance to scream ‘wanker!’ in a church sanctuary,” said Goddard. “Actually, all that cursing was a good sign. It told us that we didn’t have the usual holy club in the pews. This wasn’t going to be just another safe Christian crowd.”

NEXT WEEK: Is an online church a “real” church?

Send article as PDF to

“We’re No. 1 because there really isn’t a No. 2, which is a good business plan if you think about it,” said Craig Gross, co-founder of the ministry in Corona, Calif.

Two years ago, Gross and partner Mike Foster opened their first booth at the Adult Video News trade show in Las Vegas, handing out anti-porn brochures to hardcore consumers and sharing their faith with porn stars and producers. The youth pastors took their wives as chaperones and to take turns inside their church’s full-body rabbit costume. The approach was goofy, but intrigued the Los Angeles Times, ABC, Playboy and others.

This year XXXChurch.com teamed up with veteran pornographer James DiGiorgio — producer of videos such as “The Sopornos #3” — to make a surreal public service announcement called “Pete the Porno Puppet” warning parents not to expose kids to explicit images. As it turns out, “Jimmy D” is also a parent who worries about porn.

Now comes the hard part. Yes, the online ministry offers anonymous education, counseling and prayer support. It has free X3Watch software to help porn users form accountability groups. It has hip media products for skeptics.

But a website is not enough, said Gross, speaking at the annual North American Christian Convention. Sooner or later, church people will have to talk about pornography.

Sadly, it’s easer to discuss God with porn stars than pornography with many pastors.

Why? A poll by Leadership magazine found that four in 10 pastors with Internet access had visited a porn site and more than a third had done so in the previous year. Many skeptical pastors said those numbers were too low.

“If 37 percent of our pastors are looking at this,” said Gross, “then this is not a subject they’re going to feel comfortable with in the pulpit. … Think about it. What is going through a pastor’s mind if he wants to look at online porn before he preaches on Sunday morning? What’s that all about?”

Many believers prefer to ignore such questions. Faced with a minister who gets caught with porn, the typical church board will send the offender packing — quickly. Yet this kind of zero tolerance policy will drive other addicts deeper into fear and denial, said Gross.

“What the church keeps saying is, ‘Get out! We have no sin here,’ ” he said.

The goal is to take this secret sin seriously, while still offering hope to broken people in pews and pulpits, said the Rev. Gary Rowe, minister of pastoral care at the East 91st Street Christian Church in Indianapolis. Nevertheless, churches that create ministries for those struggling with pornography and other sexual sins will face unique challenges.

For example, it’s hard to promote small-group sessions for porn abusers without listing the times and locations in the weekly church bulletin or on a web site, he noted, during another session at the convention in Phoenix. This sensitive issue must be openly discussed in the pulpit and in church education efforts, yet without violating the privacy of those involved.

It’s also important to learn that the most effective ministry may not begin with the men.

“We had eight guys come forward when we started this work,” said Rowe. “But we immediately had calls from 100 women, looking for help with a husband or a child who was involved with pornography. That really impressed us.”

Gross agreed that wives almost always cry out for help before husbands. It is also important for church leaders to ask questions about pornography in premarital counseling and in parenting classes. Youth pastors have to realize that the teen years are crucial, since that is when most boys first come into contact with sexually explicit media.

The trick is to pull this subject out into the open with little or no warning.

“You can’t come right out and say, ‘We’re having a men’s breakfast and we’re going to talk about pornography,” said Gross. “Guess what? If you do that, nobody’s going to be there. You are going to have lots of pancakes left over. …

“We’re at the stage where you’re going to have to ambush people.”

Send article as PDF to

But Andrew Sullivan knew where to find comfort after the Vatican’s recent reminder that gay unions are in no way “similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” He poured out his frustration at www.andrewsullivan.com and his online community responded.

“Times are terrible,” wrote a Catholic priest. “The church says gay people are not permitted to get married, ordained or adopt children. All prohibitions. Not one statement of moral guidance or recognition. Negation only. I don’t know what to say or think myself. …

“I take refuge in conscience (which the tradition treats with utmost respect) and in my belief that the church is larger and older and wiser than one segment, no matter how powerful and officially sanctioned its self-defined role. The church cannot be contained or proscribed as the narrow experience of what the magisterium teaches. It is all of us.”

Sullivan shared that anonymous epistle with the 400,000 or so readers who visit his “weblog” each month. There are between 1.5 and 3 million “blogs” and the former New Republic editor is known as a trailblazer in this ever-expanding “blogosphere.”

Blogs are helping shape mainstream news, as the ousted editors of the New York Times now know. But blogs are also touching untold numbers of private lives. This is especially true in the realm of religion, where public policy and private piety are mixing in new ways.

Headlines seem distant in the daily press. They are personal in the blogs. One day it’s Catholic doctrine and its impact on legislators and judges. The next day it’s the Episcopal Church and the consecration of its first openly gay bishop.

Sullivan is used to slinging ink in this marketplace. But this week he used his blog to say that events are pushing him toward a “pretty major life-decision.”

“It tears me apart to see no prospect of the Catholic Church ending its war on gay people and their dignity in my lifetime,” he wrote. “I think it’s getting worse; and the next pope from the developing world could make the current one seem humane. Leaving the sacraments would be a huge blow to the soul; but the pope just called the love I have for my boyfriend ‘evil.’ “

Sullivan posted painful letters from gay Catholics who said the Vatican had pushed them over the line. One pondered cutting off “my membership and support of the Roman Catholic Church” and moving on to “what in my upbringing would be called ‘the next best thing’: the Episcopal Church.”

But the “blogosphere” has other sanctuaries. Father Paul Mankowski of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome called Sullivan and his acolytes “conditional” Catholics who yearn for a different church.

“They persist in their membership, but with the understanding that the Church will be a different Church in the future,” he said, in the blog at Catholic World News (www.cwnews.com). “And if the Church will reverse her teaching in future, the Church must be wrong now. And if a man believes the Church is wrong now, he can’t possibly mean the same thing I mean when he professes her to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.”

And Catholic blogger Amy Welborn (www.amywelborn.com) wondered whether Sullivan fears surrendering the familiar rituals of daily Catholic life, even though his beliefs have changed. Yet reason suggests that there “comes a point when an individual who doesn’t believe that faith rests on objective truth comes up hard against the institution that maintains that it does, and at that point, something’s got to give.”

Then again, she said, he may stay. What’s the “marquee value” of being a gay Episcopalian?

Reached by email, Sullivan said he feels tied to Catholicism by baptism, family, the sacraments and a “lifetime of prayer and reflection.” He still goes to Mass. He asked his readers to pray for him and was stunned at the consolation that flowed through these digital ties that bind.

“I don’t think I could belong to any other Church but the one I believe to be the true one,” he said. “I respect completely other faiths and denominations; but this one is in my bones and in my soul.”

Send article as PDF to

Have you responded to the urgent prayer appeal from Mrs. Fatima Abass Yakubu Idris, the wealthy Nigerian widow cancer victim who wants to donate $7.2 million to your church?

Did you hear about the upcoming movie in which Jesus and his disciples are gay?

Surely you’ve seen this email bulletin: “CBS will be forced to discontinue ‘Touched by an Angel’ for using the word God in every program.” Now, the disciples of atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair have “been granted a federal hearing on the same subject by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington D.C. Their petition, Number 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, on the airwaves of America.”

It’s hard to believe that after 30 years and 30 million letters to the FCC, this false report continues to haunt pulpits, pews and the Internet.

Believe it. The O’Hair, FCC and “Touched by an Angel” email is back in the top 10 at the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society’s sprawling “urban legends” site (www.snopes.com). And with the Angels era ending at CBS, Cathy Holden is bracing herself for more right-wing email blaming the show’s demise on a vast left-wing conspiracy.

This will all end up in a revised entry at www.TruthMiners.com, her website that strives to convince other conservative Christians that passing along half-truths, scams and urban legends is not a doctrinally sound thing to do. Her niche-audience page includes 100 of the most common emails and links to larger secular research sites.

“This story will not die. I mean, ‘Touched by an Angel’ has been on for nine years,” she said. “Anybody who reads a newspaper knows that everybody who’s involved says it’s time to end the show. But people who send these emails don’t read newspapers. Then they get an email about that atheist O’Hair lady and they say, ‘That’s it!’

“You just want to tell them, ‘Get over it. Go on with your life.’ “

Holden became fascinated with urban legends when she helped a Baptist church outside Orlando start its website. The minute she signed on the junk emails rolled in, including a new incarnation of the O’Hair report. It took five minutes online to dig up the truth.

The church lady who forwarded the rumor said she did it for fun. What’s the harm?

“I said, ‘Wait just a minute. I just told you this is a lie and you don’t care?’ … Ever since, I’ve been trying to get people to realize that a lie is a lie. This is not harmless. People get hurt. Christians have to believe truth matters,” said Holden.

The O’Hair story originally was read in pulpits, shared at prayer meetings and printed on church mimeograph machines. Now people simply click “forward” and their email goes global.

Most of these messages take two forms — outrage and inspiration. A major theme is that mainstream media hide the truth, said Holden.

“There’s that vast conspiracy out there … and it’s keeping us from hearing all of the really bad stuff that our enemies are doing. The media also keep us from hearing any inspiring stories about good things that are happening. All that gets covered up, too. So we have to pass on these stories by email in order to beat the conspiracy. You see?”

So untraceable stories spread about President Bush leaving a reception line to evangelize a teen-ager, a pastor’s wife preaching to passengers on the doomed Alaskan Airlines Flight 261 and a little girl’s testimony converting actor John Wayne. The list goes on and on.

“The bigger the story the more we like it,” said Holden. “We can be really syrupy, sappy people and we tend to fall for things that grab our heartstrings. It’s all about our feelings. … My ultimate hope is that if we can get people to care about what is going on in their Internet lives, then this new concern about truth may actually spread into other parts of their lives at home and at work and at church. Wouldn’t that be interesting?”

Send article as PDF to

The challenge must be especially daunting for liberal clerics who walk a tightrope between ancient doctrines and their own postmodern beliefs. They must say something innovative and daring — Christmas after Christmas, Easter after Easter, Earth Day after Earth Day.

Which brings us to a recent epistle by Bishop Charles E. Bennison, Jr., of Philadelphia, an ultra-candid voice in the Episcopal Church establishment. In “The Challenge of Easter” he claims that the ministry of Jesus was rooted in irony and transcended imperialistic laws, codes and creeds. He worked by trial and error. He bent the rules.

“This is what causes fear — Jesus forgives sins,” wrote Bennison. “He claims the authority of God in doing so. … He acknowledges his own sin. He knows himself to be forgiven.”

Wait a minute, said many careful readers. Jesus was a sinner? Says who?

Bennison quickly issued a statement saying he didn’t mean to contradict scripture and centuries of doctrine. But he stopped short of a clear retraction.

And so it goes on the religion beat. Year after year readers send me bizarre items from all kinds of sources, from church bulletins to the World Wide Web. Some of this stuff is too good to throw away. Thus, I always mark this column’s anniversary — this is No. 15 — by sharing out-takes.

It helps to read between the doctrinal lines.

* According to a survey by the Barna Research Group, non-Christian Americans rank “evangelicals” 10th out of 11 categories of people. Evangelicals, for example, were viewed less kindly than real-estate agents, movie stars and lawyers. They placed just ahead of prostitutes.

* Media stereotypes are hard to defeat. Carl Rosen of New York Magazine notes: “When VeggieTales first came out, my office received promo copies of the first three videos. I saw the word ‘Christian’ and threw them away. Then my wife bought one without reading the fine print and we watched it with our son and we all thought it was great.”

* For a decade or two, social activist Tony Campolo has been firing up audiences by asking if it’s a sin for Christians to drive BMWs. Now, saints and sinners alike are pondering the significance of last year’s “Chevrolet Presents: Come Together and Worship” concert tour. Inquiring minds want to know: What would Jesus drive?

* Catholic prelates in Germany have expressed dismay that the Langnese company is marketing ice creams named after the seven deadly sins of envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth and wrath. “Gluttony” ice cream I can grasp. What would “sloth” taste like?

* Does anyone know why the anti-war anarchists — www.actagainstwar.org — who are trying to paralyze the streets of San Francisco keep meeting at the St. Boniface Catholic Church? Just asking.

* The most popular satire site in cyberspace is www.theonion.com. Now, some Eastern Orthodox Christians with too much time on their hands have created its Byzantine counterpart — www.theoniondome.com. Anyone seeking evangelical satire should visit www.larknews.com. Meanwhile, I can’t decide if www.yourgoingtohell.com is satire or not.

* Someone needs to check the urban legends files. Wire services report that a 30-year-old Dutch student named Jennifer Hoes has set her wedding date. On May 28 she plans a civil ceremony in which she plans to marry herself.

* This was a wild year for Patricia Heaton, the outspoken star of the hit sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond.” In addition to walking out of the raunchy American Music Awards, she continued to speak out against abortion. Is she feeling the heat in Hollywood? “When my final judgment comes,” Heaton replied, “I don’t think I’ll be answering to Barbra Streisand.”

* Need an unofficial “Harry Potter” school tie? It turns out that the maroon-and-gold ties sold in the Calvin College bookstore are dead ringers for the tie in the young wizard’s school uniform. Was this predestined?

* And finally, Canadian newspapers reported that Anglican bishops are complaining about Father Dorian Baxter’s popular “Elvis Priestly” ministry, in which he performs weddings and funerals in a velvet Elvis suit.

The bishops believe this is in poor taste. Perhaps the priest is merely being ironic.

Send article as PDF to