Popes come and popes go. But the lives of this Polish nun and this Polish pope may be helping to reshape a crucial piece of the Catholic year — the celebrations that follow Easter, the high point of the Christian year.

It was in 1937 that Sister Faustina wrote: “As I was praying for Poland I heard the words: I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.”

After her earlier visions, which church leaders initially discounted, the young nun had written down a cycle of prayers appealing for God’s forgiveness and mercy, a set of devotions that became known as the “Divine Mercy Chaplet.” In the years after her death in 1938, a seminarian in nearby Krakow named Karol Wojtyla became devoted to these prayers and to the legacy of Sister Faustina.

Wojtyla, of course, soon became a priest and a popular professor, before beginning his ascent as a bishop, archbishop and cardinal. Then, in 1978, he became Pope John Paul II.

No one was surprised when this loyal son of Poland beatified Sister Faustina on April 18, 1993, and canonized her on April 30, 2000. “The message of Divine Mercy has always been near and dear to me,” noted John Paul II, during a 1997 pilgrimage to the nun’s tomb. It could be said, he added, that her message “forms the image of this pontificate.”

The next crucial date in this time line came shortly after Sister Faustina became St. Faustina, when Pope John Paul II established that the first Sunday after Easter would also be celebrated as Divine Mercy Sunday.

The elevation of this humble “daughter of my land, is not only a gift for Poland but for all humanity,” declared John Paul II, in his 2001 sermon on the first Divine Mercy Sunday. “Indeed the message she brought is the appropriate and incisive answer that God wanted to offer to the questions and expectations of human beings in our time, marked by terrible tragedies. Jesus said to Sr. Faustina one day: ‘Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy.’ Divine Mercy! This is the Easter gift that the Church receives from the risen Christ and offers to humanity.”

Only four years later, the timing of the pope’s death added another connection between Easter and Divine Mercy Sunday, as well as between his life and that of St. Faustina. John Paul died after sundown on the Saturday after Easter, literally at the end of a Divine Mercy vigil and Mass that was celebrated at his bedside.

As this rite ended, witnesses said the pope managed one last benediction before he died — a simple “amen.”

Thus, the beatification rites for John Paul II were held on the anniversary of his death, as it would fall on the liturgical calendar — Divine Mercy Sunday.

If he is later canonized as a saint — crowds have been chanting the title “John Paul the Great” since the day of his death — it is logical to ask how this could impact the liturgical calendar for the 1.1 billion Catholics living and worshiping around the world.

The week begins with Easter, the highest moment of celebration in the Christian year. Then comes the “octave” of days dedicated to the Divine Mercy prayers, a period in which priests can offer special confession opportunities for those seeking to return to the sacramental life of the church.

At the end of the week there is Divine Mercy Sunday, which the Catholic Church now teaches is the day when, according to the vision of St. Faustina, forgiveness is uniquely available for all who repent and turn to God. The gates of heaven are wide open.

Could celebrations of the life of St. John Paul the Great — the charismatic pope whose words will live on in every conceivable form of mass media — somehow become linked to this great week of celebration?

Follow the time line. Do the math.

The bishops gathered at the ancient Council of Nicea didn’t face that kind of communications challenge and, thus, produced an old-fashioned creed that in English is at least 1,161 characters long.

No wonder so many of the gray-haired administrators in black suits in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops struggle with life online. It’s hard to take seriously the frivolous-sounding words — “blog” and “tweet” leap to mind — that define reality among the natives on what Pope Benedict XVI calls the “Digital Continent.”

“In the past, the church would often build new parish structures, knowing that people would recognize the church architecture and start showing up. On the Digital Continent, ‘If you build it, they will come’ does not hold true,” said Bishop Ronald Herzog of Alexandria, La., in a report from the body’s communications committee.

“We digital immigrants need lessons on the digital culture, just as we expect missionaries to learn the cultures of the people they are evangelizing. We have to be enculturated. It’s more than just learning how to create a Facebook account.”

This is important news in an era in which recent research from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that the Catholic Church was retaining 68 percent of its members who, as children, were raised in the fold. While the church is making converts, those who have left Catholicism in recent years outnumber those who have joined by nearly a 4-to-1 ratio.

Almost half of those who left Catholicism and did not join another church exited before the age of 18, as did one-third of those who chose to join another church. Another 30 percent of young Catholics left the church by the age of 24. At that point, the departure rate slowed down.

Truth is, it is almost impossible to talk about the lives of teens and young adults without discussion the growing power of their social-media networks. For young people worldwide, social media and their mobile devices have become the “first point of reference” in daily life, warned Herzog.

“The implications of that for a church which is struggling to get those same young people to enter our churches on Sunday are staggering. If the church is not on their mobile device, it doesn’t exist.”

As recently as a similar report in 2007, it was clear the bishops were hesitant to discuss the digital world because they feared its power when used by the church’s critics, said Rocco Palmo, who produces the influential “Whispers in the Loggia” weblog about Catholic news and trends.

The Herzog report was a step forward, primarily because the bishops seem to realize this is a subject that they cannot ignore. That’s significant in an era in which many Vatican officials still cling to their fax machines and struggle to keep up with their email. During the recent Baltimore meetings, said Palmo, there were more iPads in the hands of younger bishops “than you would find at your local Apple store.”

“In the old days, that stone church on the corner was a sign of the presence of God in your community. Well, that’s what a church website is today,” he said. If bishops and priests cannot grasp “that one-dimensional reality in our culture, how are they supposed to grasp the two-dimensional, interactive world of social media?”

The theoretical stakes are high, noted Herzog, but it has also become impossible to ignore the raw numbers. For example, if the 500 million active Facebook users became their own nation, it would be the world’s third largest — behind China and India.

The bottom line: Catholicism may be “facing as great a challenge as that of the Protestant Reformation,” said the bishop.

“Anyone can create a blog. Everyone’s opinion is valid. And if a question or contradiction is posted, the digital natives expect a response and something resembling a conversation,” said Herzog. “We can choose not to enter into that cultural mindset, but we do so at great peril to the Church’s credibility and approachability in the minds of the natives. …

“This is a new form of pastoral ministry. It may not be the platform we were seeking, but it is an opportunity of such magnitude that we should consider carefully the consequences of disregarding it.”

Weeks after that signal in 2005, the cardinal became pope. Then at World Youth Day 2008, he said, “I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured. … These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation.”

The pope’s recent letter to Irish Catholics also made headlines, of course. After new cries for repentance, Benedict XVI told the victims: “I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. … It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church.”

All of these words were spoken in public and, thus, led to debates and discussions around the world. However, in recent months tuned-in Catholics have been reading about a private, strategic statement — by a Catholic layman — that may have had the greatest practical impact in American sanctuaries. The St. Louis Beacon, an independent online newspaper, recently published the document.

The 10-page memo (.pdf here) was written by David Spotanski, vice chancellor of the Diocese of Belleville in Southern Illinois, and given to his bishop on Feb. 22, 2002.

It’s crucial that Bishop Wilton D. Gregory had recently become president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — just as another wave of abuse reports hit the news. When the bishop began scanning the document, Spotanski took it back and read it aloud, behind closed doors.

“The truth is that our bishops are not doing all they CAN to stop sexual abuse of minors by their brother priests; they’re doing all they CARE TO,” wrote Spotanski. “Like most Catholics I’m stunned and horrified that there’s a distinction. … For a Church that can be so outspoken and uncompromising about the splinters in the eyes of our culture, She has apparently for decades hypocritically concealed a plank in Her own eye from which one could hew an ark.”

In addition to handing the bishop the memo, Spotanski provided a photo of his daughter and two sons, who were 14, 11 and 9 when it was taken. He then placed a copy of the photo in Gregory’s briefcase before every major meeting the bishop attended that year — including a face-to-face meeting between Pope John Paul II and the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops. Gregory also met with Cardinal Ratzinger and other top Vatican officials.

This led to a crucial Vatican summit on the abuse crisis and, eventually, much tougher policies to protect children in American churches.

While that charter didn’t take every action advised by Spotanski, noted commentator Ross Douthat, it’s safe to say that “while the princes of the American church were immobilized by denial … the rough draft of the policy that righted the ship was being written by a middle-aged layman in the Midwest, in consultation with the Catholic dads on his local softball team.”

The New York Times columnist, who is an active Catholic, called Spotanski, the “man who saved American Catholicism.”

If so, the key to the memo was its blunt, personal tone and its emphasis on the damage done to the lives and faith of ordinary Catholic children and their parents. For example, Spotanski asked, what Jesus would say to a cardinal who has “shown himself to be dishonest about his knowledge of the forcible anal rape of children?” He then quoted a bishop as observing, “I don’t think I’d like hell very much.”

Most of all, he argued, Catholic bishops needed to start thinking about their own vows and the church’s future and, thus, stop treating victims like “lepers, sinners, nuisances or threats.” At some point, faithful Catholics would close their hearts and their checkbooks.

When that happened, warned Spotanski, bishops in “tainted dioceses” would have to “choose between their missions and their mansions, their food buses and their limousines, the ‘least of their brothers’ and Brooks Brothers. … The depleted bottom line is that you simply can’t run a major American archdiocese for very long on 30 silver coins.”

“When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions. … Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal,” wrote the pope, in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (“The Splendor of Truth”).

“In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence, both on the national and international levels.”

It would be stating the matter mildly to say that young Catholic adults in America disagree with John Paul II on this issue, according to a new survey commissioned by the Knights of Columbus.

An overwhelming 82 percent of Catholic Millennials — the generation between 18-29 years of age — agreed with this statement: “Morals are relative; there is no definite right and wrong for everybody.” In comparison, 64 percent of other Millennials affirmed that statement, when questioned by researchers with the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

Older “American Catholics” were also more willing to embrace moral relativism than were other Americans, at the rate of 63 percent compared with 56 percent. However, a slim majority of “Practicing Catholics” in the survey — 54 percent — were willing to affirm the statement, “Morals are fixed and based on unchanging standards.”

“Practicing Catholics” were defined as “those who attend religious services at least once a month,” explained Barbara L. Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll. This group included “Catholics who attend services more than once a week, once a week, or once or twice a month excluding weddings and funerals,” she said.

As stark as those numbers are, it’s important to understand that these broad Catholic categories include different kinds of believers who have different beliefs and lifestyles, said Andrew Walter, vice president for media research and development for the Knights of Columbus. For church leaders, the “Practicing Catholics” category will offer more insights into what is happening in pews.

“You have to ask, ‘Who is truly connected to their faith? Who is doing something with it?’ When you talk about these ‘Practicing Catholics,’ you are not talking about the Christmas and Easter crowd,” he said. “These people have an ongoing link to a Catholic parish and they are doing something with it.”

While the poll contains evidence that what Pope Benedict XVI has called a “dictatorship of relativism” may be growing stronger, the numbers also show that young Catholic adults share a yearning for some kind of moral order — even if they reject the existence of moral absolutes. It’s possible to “drill down” into the research, said Walter, and see that when young Catholics are forced to wrestle with individual issues “they are willing to make judgment calls and say that some things are right and some things are wrong.”

For example, 91 percent of Catholic Millennials affirmed that adultery is morally wrong, 66 percent said abortion is immoral and 63 percent rejected assisted suicide. When asked to identify virtues that are “not valued enough in American society,” 82 percent selected “commitment to marriage,” making that the top choice.

But there was a flip side to this moral coin. Only 20 percent of these young Catholic adults agreed with their church’s teachings that premarital sex is morally wrong and, thus, sinful. Only 35 percent affirmed doctrines that forbid sexual relationships between homosexuals.

While Catholic Millennials are interested in spiritual growth, only 43 percent said that American society doesn’t place enough value on “religious observance,” putting that choice in last place. In another answer sure to raise clergy eyebrows, 61 percent affirmed that it’s “okay for someone of your religion to also practice other religions” at the same time.

“They want to say they are relativists, but it’s also clear that they are not relativists on all issues,” stressed Walter. “They have a strong spiritual sense that they say is important in their lives. What they don’t have is a place for institutional religion in their lives. … The problem is that you have some people who have a church and others who really have no church at all.”

During this era of crisis and decline, some Catholic religious orders have chosen to enter a time of “sojourning” that involves “moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus,” Sinsinawa Dominican Sister Laurie Brink told a 2007 national gathering of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

“Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian,” added Brink, a former journalist who is a biblical studies professor at Chicago’s Catholic Theological Union. For these women, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine.”

It took time, but ripples from her address have grown into waves of debate about the health of many religious orders, especially in light of reports that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is supervising a “doctrinal assessment” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. The question is whether many sisters have rejected doctrines stated in Vatican documents focusing on the male priesthood, homosexuality and the Catholic Church’s role in the salvation of souls. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — played a crucial role in the development of these documents.

Catholic conservatives are convinced that Brink crossed an important line.

“If you’re going to be Post-Christian, then be Post-Christian. I don’t say that with snark. It’s just reality,” argued Catholic blogger Amy Welborn of Beliefnet. “If you’ve moved on — move on. Step out from the protective mantle of identity that gives you cachet, that of ‘Catholic nun.’ “

However, it’s important to note that this “Post-Christian,” “sojourning” strategy was only the third of four strategies critiqued by Brink in the online text of her presentation, entitled “A Marginal Life: Pursuing Holiness in the 21st Century (.pdf).” Her goal was to urge leaders of Catholic religious orders to make clear, if painful choices in an age in which “indecision” is the proverbial elephant in the living room.

Sister Laurie began with this assumption: “Old concepts of how to live the Life are no longer valid.”

The first option, she said, is “death with dignity and grace,” as opposed to becoming a “zombie congregation” that staggers on with no purpose. This option must be taken seriously since the average age of the 67,000 sisters and nuns in the United States is 69. Many retreat ministries are closing and large “mother houses” are struggling with finances, while some congregations no longer invite or accept new candidates.

Meanwhile, Brink noted with sadness, some orders have chosen to turn back the clock — thus winning the favor of Rome. “They are putting on the habit, or continuing to wear the habit with zest. … Some would critique that they are the nostalgic portrait of a time now passed. But they are flourishing. Young adults are finding in these communities a living image of their romantic view of Religious Life. They are entering. And they are staying,” she said.

Finally, some women are fighting on, hoping to achieve reconciliation someday with a changed, egalitarian church hierarchy. Thus, the current conflicts in American Catholicism cannot be hidden, she said.

“Theologians are denied academic freedom. Religious and laywomen feel scrutinized simply because of their biology. Gays and lesbians desire to participate as fully human, fully sexual Catholics within their parishes,” said Brink. Many Catholics also oppose the “ecclesial deafness that refuses to hear the call of the Spirit summoning not only celibate males, but married men and women to serve” as priests.

These religious orders will strive to recruit new sisters and train them to continue the struggle against the “men who control the power in but not the Spirit of the Church,” she said. If reconciliation occurs, it will take place in a reformed church.

Right now, she stressed, the Catholic hierarchy is “right to feel alarmed. What is at stake is the very heart of the Church itself.”

However, since this man was a scientist, Father Gary Thomas wasn’t surprised that he was a skeptic when it came to supernatural evil. That was fine, since one of the first things the priest learned in Rome while training to be an exorcist was to remain as skeptical as possible, as long as possible. Still, there were troubling facts in the man’s story — such as an episode when a counselor urged him to channel spirits.

Finally, the priest turned to “De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam (Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications),” the Vatican document released in 1998 that contains a modernized exorcism rite. He has been fighting this man’s demons ever since.

“When we started, he told me, ‘Wait! Can’t you just take this thing right out of me?’ But that’s rarely how things work,” said Thomas, the official exorcist in the Diocese of San Jose in northern California. “It’s hard to get people to understand that no two exorcisms are the same. Reality isn’t like the movies.”

The subject of demonic possession remains controversial, as illustrated by the media storm that greeted the revised exorcism rite, which was required by a Vatican II mandate three decades earlier. Later, the Vatican announced that Pope John Paul II had personally performed three exorcisms during his pontificate.

While the new rite warned exorcists not to confuse diabolic possession with mental illness, it also affirmed ancient teachings about the reality of spiritual warfare, as illustrated by biblical accounts of Jesus performing exorcisms.

Truth is, stressed Thomas, the events of Holy Week — especially Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter — make no sense without real demons, real temptations and a real hell. But many Catholics disagree.

“There are plenty of bishops and priests who simply do not believe in Satan and demons and they have told me so,” he said. “That makes a difference. What most people do not realize is that bishops are like independent contractors and they can do whatever they damn well want to do. … That’s why we don’t have many exorcists in America.”

At the request of his own bishop, Thomas took a Vatican-approved approved course on demonic possession while living at the North American College in Rome in late 2005 and early 2006. As part of his studies, the second-career priest — who worked in a mortuary before seeking ordination — participated in more than 80 exorcisms with a senior Italian exorcist. These experiences form the heart of “The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist,” a new book written by American journalist Matt Baglio.

For the past three years, the 55-year-old priest has quietly been using the techniques he learned in Rome. He said that his teachers, from the beginning, emphasized that an exorcist must strive to remain the “ultimate skeptic,” pursuing every pastoral option before turning to the exorcism rite as a last resort.

Modern exorcists are urged to work with psychiatrists, psychologists and physicians while evaluating those who are suffering. They also test to see if spiritual health can be restored through confession, healing rites and frequent participation in Mass. However, Thomas noted that these contacts with “holy things” occasionally trigger open displays of demonic powers.

It’s one thing to hear the voice of a demon on a recording or to read pages of blasphemies in transcripts. Face-to-face encounters are another matter.

The classic signs of possession have been established for ages. The possessed may exhibit superhuman strength, describe private events in the life of an exorcist or possess the ability to speak languages — such as Latin — they have never studied. They often suffer bizarre physical reactions to contact with holy water, crosses or icons.

Most people seeking exorcisms are simply physically sick, mentally ill or emotionally distressed. Some may try to fake “Hollywood-esque symptoms” in order to draw sympathy or attention.

“You may see case after case in which there are other explanations for what these people are suffering,” stressed Thomas. “But then, every now and then, you see things that let you know that you are dealing with the real thing. That’s when you know that sin is real, hell is real and Satan is real. That’s when you learn what the cross and the resurrection are all about.”

But the bishops had to vote on Ex Corde Ecclesiae (“From the Heart of the Church”). After all, they had been arguing about this papal document throughout the 1990s, trying to square the doctrinal vision of Pope John Paul II with their American reality. Rome said their first response was too weak, when it came to insisting that Catholic schools remain openly Catholic. Finally, the bishops approved a tougher document on a 223-to-31 vote.

Soon after that 1999 showdown, someone “with a good reason for wanting to know” emailed a simple question to Russell Shaw of the United States Catholic Conference. Who voted against the statement?

“There was no way to know. In fact, the Vatican doesn’t know — for sure — who those 31 bishops where,” said Shaw, discussing one of the many mysteries in his book, “Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church.

“The secret ballots were destroyed,” he noted. “These days the voting process is even more secret, since the bishops just push a button and they’ve voted. Even if you wanted to know how your bishop voted, or you wanted the Vatican to know how your bishop voted, there’s no way to do that.”

Professionals have learned to read between the lines of debates held in the open sessions that the U.S. bishops choose to schedule. Outside those doors, insiders talk and spread rumors. Some bishops spin the press and others, usually those sending messages to Rome, hold press conferences, publish editorials or preach sermons. But many of the crucial facts remain cloaked in secrecy.

Of course, noted Shaw, few leaders of powerful institutions enjoy discussing their crucial decisions — let alone corporate or personal sins — in public. When Catholic insiders complain about “clericalism” they are confronting a problem that affects all hierarchies, from government to academia, from the Pentagon to Wall Street.

“It’s a kind of elitism, a way of thinking and behaving that assigns to the managerial class a superior status,” he said. “They are chiefs and everyone else is an Indian. They set the agenda. They always make the final decisions. They get to tell everyone else what to do.”

Of course, there’s truth in the old image that puts the pope at the top of an ecclesiastical pyramid, with ranks of clergy cascading down to the pews. Catholicism is not a democracy and there are times when leaders must keep secrets. That’s “a truth,” said Shaw, but it is “not the only truth,” since the whole church is meant to be knit together in a Communion built on a “radical equality of dignity and rights.”

Part of what is happening, he explained, is that some bishops are protecting a “facade of unity” that hides their doctrinal disagreements with the Vatican. While Shaw believes the bishops are more united with Rome now than they where were about 25 years ago, some bishops may be pushing for more and more closed “executive” sessions as a subconscious way to protect themselves.

Take, for example, the brutal waves of scandal caused by the sexual abuse of children and teens by clergy. For several decades, argued Shaw, the bishops have been afraid to openly discuss “the causes of the dreadful mess — nasty things like homosexuality among priests, theological rationalizing on the subject of sex and the entrenched self-protectiveness of the old clericalist culture.”

That’s the kind of scandal that creates global headlines. But, for most Catholics, more commonplace forms of secrecy shape their lives at the local level, said Shaw.

Consider another story reported in Shaw’s book, about a woman who quietly confronted a priest after a Mass in which he omitted the creed. When he failed to acknowledge the error, she said, “Father, you teach your people to be disobedient when you disobey the Church.”

The offended priest was silent. Then he leaned forward and whispered, “You know what honey? You’re full of it.” The priest walked away, giving the woman and her husband what appeared to be “the single-digit salute.”

Truth is, said Shaw, “clericalism is often alive and well at the local level. That’s the kind of secrecy and dishonesty that really cuts the heart of many local parishes, destroying any hope for real Communion there.”

So Pope Benedict XVI visited the White House and proclaimed “God bless America!” Then he noted that, in this culture of radical individualism, “Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility.”

The former theology professor, speaking to Catholic college leaders, enthusiastically embraced academic freedom. Then he stressed that traditional doctrine — as “upheld by the Church’s Magisterium” — should shape all aspects of a truly Catholic “institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom.”

The former prisoner of war, speaking at the United Nations, hailed the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then he dared to claim that the document’s defense of universal truths is built on “the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations.”

The pope spoke to a wide variety of audiences during this visit and he emphasized words of praise and encouragement, not judgment. After all, Benedict could speak to gatherings of U.S. politicians and global diplomats, but he knew that he had no real authority over them. Also, as strange as it sounds, the pope’s control over what happens on Catholic campuses is limited, at best.

Thus, the message that mattered the most came when Benedict faced the 350 American bishops in the crypt under the soaring Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. In theory, the bishops answer directly to the pope when it comes time to explain what happens at their altars and in the pews.

The sound bite that dominated the news afterwards focused on the sexual abuse of children and teens by Catholic clergy, with the pope agreeing with Chicago Cardinal Francis George’s verdict that the scandal was “sometimes very badly handled” by the church hierarchy.

“Many of you have spoken to me of the enormous pain that your communities have suffered when clerics have betrayed their priestly obligations and duties by such gravely immoral behavior,” said Benedict. “Rightly, you attach priority to showing compassion and care to the victims. It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliation and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged. …

“Now that the scale and gravity of the problem is more clearly understood, you have been able to adopt more focused remedial and disciplinary measures and to promote a safe environment that gives greater protection to young people. While it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of clergy and religious in America do outstanding work … it is vitally important that the vulnerable always be shielded from those who would cause harm.”

A leader of a support group for victims pressed on. The pope’s statement that the scandal was “somewhat mishandled” is inaccurate, because “this is a current crisis, not a past one,” said Barbara Doris of St. Louis, speaking for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “The phrase obscures the unassailable fact that hundreds of bishops willfully and repeatedly deceive parishioners, stonewall police and leave children at risk.”

But there was more to this speech than one big quotation. While the pope’s address challenged the bishops to keep wrestling with the sexual-abuse scandal, he also put these evil acts in a wider framework — an era of revolt against the church’s moral teachings. And who is in charge of defending these doctrines, while finding ways to strengthen marriages and families?

That would be the church’s bishops, said Benedict. Thus, he urged them to address the sin of abuse within the “wider context of sexual mores,” thus setting an example for society as a whole. This crisis, he said, calls “for a determined, collective response,” a response led by the bishops.

“Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships,” he said. “They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today. … What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?

“We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike.”

Thus, the pope traditionally baptizes several new Catholics during this rite in St. Peter’s Basilica. This year, one of the converts was Magdi Allam, a high-profile journalist and, perhaps, Italy’s most famous “moderate” Muslim.

This caused a firestorm. One Muslim scholar active in interfaith talks condemned the “Vatican’s deliberate and provocative act of baptizing Allam … in such a spectacular way.” Aref Ali Nayed, director of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Jordan, wrote: “It is sad that the intimate and personal act of a religious conversion is made into a triumphalist tool for scoring points.”

This dramatic scene caught Vatican watchers by surprise.

When experts compare Pope Benedict XVI with his predecessor, one common observation is that Pope John Paul II was, because of his background as an actor, the master of grand gestures that soared above the usual dense papal prose. Meanwhile, the current pope — a former professor who has written shelves of theological works — has a reputation for being rather dry.

“If John Paul weren?t a pope, he would have been a movie star,” said John L. Allen, Jr., the National Catholic Reporter’s veteran Vatican correspondent and author of two books on the current pope. “If Benedict weren?t a pope, he would have been a university professor.”

Nevertheless, it would “be a mistake to believe that Benedict is simply incapable of talking in pictures when he has a point he wants to make or that kind of flair for the just right dramatic gesture,” said Allen, speaking at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The question, of course, is whether Benedict will make any dramatic gestures during his upcoming visit to the Washington, D.C., and New York City. While politicos will insist on sifting his texts for any sound bites that might affect the White House race, Allen and another Vatican expert said it would be wiser to focus on Benedict’s April 18 speech at the United Nations.

This is, after all, the official reason that he is coming to America. And, after that symbolic Easter baptism, the pope may choose to underline a passage in the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” states Article 18. “This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private. …”

Benedict knows that the UN is, throughout 2008, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, said George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who is best known for writing “Witness to Hope,” a 992-page biography of John Paul II. For the pope and Vatican diplomats, this document represents “a kind of moral constitution for the world,” built on a “common moral consensus” that is under attack.

Any defense of human rights, stressed Weigel, requires the use of a “word that Benedict XVI has brought into the Vatican’s inter-religious dialogue in a powerful way — reciprocity. If there is a great mosque in Rome welcomed by the leadership of the Catholic Church, why not a church in Saudi Arabia? If we recognize the freedom of others to change their religious location as conscience dictates, that needs to be recognized by dialogue partners as well.”

Or to cite another example, a Christian who converts to Islam in Italy doesn’t need to hire armed bodyguards. But this isn’t true for Muslims who choose to convert to another faith while living in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and other parts of the world — even in some corners of Europe.

The key, said Allen, is that Benedict XVI isn’t trying — here’s a sound bite — to “launch a new crusade.” Instead, the pope wants to encourage more Muslims to defend religious liberty, while continuing to reject any brand of secularism that denies the existence of universal, eternal, truths.

“In that struggle,” said Allen, “Benedict believes that a more moderate, reformed form of Islam ought to be Christianity?s natural ally.” In the pope’s worldview, the “serious religious believers in the world ought to be the ones who hold the line against the dictatorship of relativism.”

“Millions admired him and adored him, but only a few got into John and June’s inner spiritual life,” said Graham, who shared many a crusade stage with Cash. “He and June are in heaven, and we are looking forward to seeing them relatively soon.”

The words “relatively soon” did not require explanation.

Another American giant will almost certainly be departing soon. There is talk of the world’s most famous evangelist returning to London yet again for a 2004 crusade, but few would be surprised if Parkinson’s disease prevents those altar calls.

Of course, Graham is too towering a figure to merely belong to America. And the impact of the man some already call Pope John Paul the Great has been too universal to discuss his work only in terms of Roman Catholicism. Both men belong to the ages and to the world.

Scholars and scribes who study religion are bracing for changes that are hard to fathom.

An editorial in The Christian Century asks: “Did a politically shrewd and theologically sophisticated Polish pope trigger the collapse of Communism? Did an energetic and telegenic southern evangelist foster the resurgence of evangelical Christianity in the post-World War II era?” The fact that questions of this magnitude make sense is remarkable, especially in an age that only assigns greatness to sports and entertainment celebrities.

As a journal for Protestant progressives, the Century noted that both men have always had their critics — especially on the left. In 1957, mainline theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said Graham’s appeal “depends on oversimplifying every issue.” The British Council of Churches once said that he uses “all the tricks of the modern demagogue.” Catholic pundit Garry Wills has credited Graham with selling “golf-course spirituality” to the powerful.

On the other side of the aisle, fundamentalist Protestants accused the evangelist of fatal compromises with Catholics and liberals and warned that he had become the most “dangerous man” in Christianity.

Pope John Paul II would understand. He has faced similar sniper fire from both directions, with liberals accusing him of crushing dissent while some traditionalists insist he has failed to adequately crack down on dissent.

This is actually a sign of how influential both of these men have been, said historian Mark Noll, who teaches at Graham’s alma mater, Wheaton College.

“If a person is getting criticism from radically different points on the ideological compass, at the very least that implies that they have displayed a certain degree of independence and courage,” he said. It is also crucial to note that both men “worked on a great and grand stage in times of tremendous change. Billy Graham was not merely a great evangelist. He was the great evangelist at the time when evangelicalism walked onto the world stage.”

Graham and John Paul became statesmen and both mastered modern media, noted journalist David Aikman, author of “Great Souls: Six Who Changed the Century.” Both built bridges to the thriving churches of the Third World and defended religious liberty worldwide.

The pope’s 1989 Vatican meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was merely one dramatic example.

“You can imagine this scene,” said Aikman. “The pope greets Gorbachev in Russian and begins lecturing him IN RUSSIAN on how Christians make great citizens and how their beliefs and values are worthy of respect and even favor. Who knows what that meant to Russia? Who knows what impact words such as that might have in China?”

Who knows if new leaders of this stature will emerge quickly? There will be a papal lection and a new pope, noted Noll. But with Graham, there is no way for the diverse and splintered world of evangelical Protestantism to select a true successor. It is a matter of gifts and timing.

“This truly is a case of trying to say ‘hail and farewell’ as we face the passing of two remarkable men,” said Noll. “Everyone knows that this is a moment of great meaning, but no one knows exactly what it means.

“No one knows what will happen next. This is why we struggle for words.”