Most people, even those who live there, wonder what Washington politics is really like behind the scenes. There is no one in political journalism better equipped to tell that story than Bob Novak. In The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington he tells it with an honesty and wit worthy of Balzac — he spares no one, including himself.

Bob Novak has been a political reporter in Washington since 1957. Along with Bill Buckley, Novak has written the longest running syndicated column in America. He has published the Evans-Novak Political Report since 1963 and pioneered television journalism culminating with CNN's Capital Gang and Crossfire.

After 25 years at CNN he moved to Fox News over wrongful on-air accusations that he had leaked confidential information about a CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Novak's chilling account of the Plame affair, grand jury and all, suitably begins and ends a book filled with accounts of politically motivated lies and deceptions.

Novak's sometimes hilarious, often startling experiences with Washington notables through thirteen administrations combine to create a veritable Bonfire of the Vanities of our nation's political life.

His personal takes and insider stories on presidents, congressmen, and media celebrities will not be well-received in the halls of power.

I expect Novak will be on the receiving end of some fairly cutting jibes and attempts to squelch sales of his book by dismissing it as the vindictive ramblings of a right-winger who stayed in journalism too long. Washington is already buzzing about which cable news show will, or more likely will not, interview Novak about his book.

Novak admits he has "few heroes," and apparently none of them have been political leaders. Since leaving the sports reporting of his youth, he has consistently found politicians "less impressive" than the athletic coaches he covered as a teenager. Jimmy Carter is described as a "habitual liar," Nixon a "bad man," Gore a "phony," and Gerald Ford as the "nicest person to be president during my career, [but] was ill equipped for the job." The list could go on and on.

One hundred pages into the book Novak made what I took to be a cynical comment, "Little in Washington is on the level." By the end of the book, over 500 pages later, I thought he had pretty much made his case.

For the story it tells about American politics, as well as its candor, Novak's book covering his five decades as a print and TV journalist, immediately becomes the indispensable guide to what you really need to know about the messy intersection of the media and politics in Washington.

Novak's memoir, however, has another more edifying side. Catholics and others will be fascinated by the conversion to Christianity of a non-practicing (but bar-mitzvahed) Jew from Joliet, Illinois. The grandson of Jewish immigrants, Novak was never — uncharacteristically — a liberal, although he was sometimes perceived as such. His father Maurice, an engineering expert in gas production, was fervently anti-New Deal and FDR, a "rare Republican Novak." There was so much political news floating around the house, through newspapers, magazines, and radio shows Novak became "addicted to politics" before he was nine!

He was also addicted to sports, and not being very good at any of them, he resorted to covering them for school newspapers, first in high school then in college. When the school administration did not name him as sports editor of the Daily Illini at the University of Illinois he learned a lesson that would change his life: "It taught me that politics for me was a lot like sports. I was a lot better reporting it than practicing it. I am not a person it is easy for a lot of people to like. No stirrer-up of strife is ever very popular."

His self-description as a "stirrer-up of strife" was inspired by a figure from Canto XVIII of Dante's Inferno, Bertrans de Born who is depicted as carrying his severed head like a lantern.

Novak admits there were other reasons he was not likeable. He was perceived as arrogant, was prone to depression, and did not make predictably optimistic comments about the future of the country. This led to the "Prince of Darkness" label first bestowed on him by John J. Lindsay of the Washington Post.

It didn't help that for most of his life he was a heavy drinker, as were many of his generation, which sometimes led to angry words with friends or a fist being thrown at a belligerent colleague. Drinking was so much a part of his daily routine the reader may be left feeling a bit thirsty.

Novak admits his foibles and his mistakes. His drive to scoop other reporters led him to some serious blunders. He admits being "used" by Chuck Colson to write a story suggesting a pending lawsuit against Time magazine for claiming Colson was connected to the Watergate break-in. When Colson never sued it became apparent he never had any intention to do so. Novak concludes his name wasn't found on Chuck Colson's famous "Enemies List" from the Nixon White because "I could be manipulated."

Whereas his dogged pessimism set him apart from fellow journalists at the beginning, it was his style of reporting, and eventually his discovery of faith, that led to a greater sense of isolation from centers of power.

An early turning point came during the McGovern campaign for the Democratic nomination. Novak quoted a "liberal Senator" who said people didn't know that McGovern "is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot… Once middle-America — Catholic middle-America, in particular — finds this out, he's dead." Although McGovern beat Humphrey for the nomination, the "Triple A" label (amnesty, abortion and acid) contributed to his dismal showing against Nixon in 1972. The irony of that story is revealed for the first time in this memoir: the "liberal senator" was Thomas Eagleton, a Catholic, who McGovern eventually chose as his running mate.

Novak writes, "The liberal establishment — including journalistic colleagues — never forgave me."

The scorn of the establishment would grow to encompass conservatives and Republicans due to the 124 columns written on Watergate with partner Rowland Evans. In one particularly colorful episode, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig called Novak into his office and "smashing" his West Point ring on his desk asked, "How can you defy your commander-in-chief?" Novak had to remind Haig he was a reporter and hadn't served in the military since the Korean War.

Novak often observed the overt media bias in favor of the Democratic Party. During the 1960 campaign the lead reporter for the New York Times, William Lawrence, commented on being assigned to covering Nixon: "I think I can do Jack [Kennedy] more good when I'm with Nixon."

This thread can be traced throughout the book, e.g.; the reporters covering the 1972 campaign "were so deeply in love with McGovern they had taken leave of their better judgment." After the story broke on Thursday before the 2000 election of George W. Bush's previous arrest for drunk driving "Reporters covering his campaign could not conceal their elation." When it looked as if Al Gore was going to beat Bush on election night, "[Bill] Press was so excited he could barely contain himself on the air…"

The counterpoint of these political and journalistic machinations is the warm account of Novak's lifelong friendship with his partner Rowly Evans, his marriage to a former aide to Lyndon Johnson, Geraldine Williams from Hillsboro, Texas, and their mutual discovery of the Catholic Church. Without her husband knowing, Geraldine had become an anti-abortion activist in the early 90s.

When Geraldine began attending Mass at St. Patrick's Church near the Capitol her husband began going with her. When he revealed their regular Mass attendance to a student from Syracuse University after a lecture she bluntly asked when they planned to join the Church. He replied that they had no such plans and she responded, "Mr. Novak, life is short, but eternity is forever." When Novak returned to DC he "suggested to Geraldine that the time had come for both of us to enter the Church." They were received on May 20, 1998.

Reading The Prince of Darkness you encounter a long life lived navigating the tumult of political storms, but also a life that finds itself suddenly, and peacefully, coming to rest on a further shore.

Robert D. Novak's The Prince of Darkness can be purchased from Amazon.

In an extraordinary measure, three inland dioceses in Mississippi and Louisiana are “adopting” the three dioceses most directly affected by the storm. The Diocese of Baton Rouge has adopted the Archdiocese of New Orleans; the Diocese of Jackson the Diocese of Biloxi; and the Diocese of Lafayette the Diocese of Homa-Thibodaux.

In addition to office space, the adopted dioceses will receive office equipment, computers, telephones, housing, and the help of local diocesan staff.

Archbishop Hughes of New Orleans has already set up a chancery in an empty elementary school in Baton Rouge. He expects to be there at least four months.

On Wednesday, a communication went out to all the Catholic schools in the Diocese of Baton Rouge to be prepared to double their class sizes. They are planning to take in the students from the Diocese of New Orleans. They are also offering housing to displaced families.

What about the damage done to parish structures and schools?

Pat O'Meara is managing director and founder of O'Meara Ferguson Kearns in Reston, Virginia, a firm specializing in financial advisory work for the Catholic Church. He has firsthand knowledge of the cost of building Catholic schools and parish churches.

O'Meara said, “A tremendous challenge left by this storm is that the renovation and rebuilding of the Catholic infrastructure in New Orleans alone could easily run into the hundreds of millions.” O'Meara has ties to the Gulf coast, having worked for the Archdiocese of Mobile before going into the financial world.

O'Meara explained that the average cost of rebuilding a high school could be between $15 and $25 million; a grade school between $6 and $10 million. An inexpensive parish church costs somewhere between $5 and $9 million, and “a more elaborate or historically significant structure that needs to be restored could cost up to $20 million or more. And the parish center next door could run between $1 and $5 million.”

O'Meara's estimate is corroborated by the basic math. Consider that the Archdiocese of New Orleans has 142 parishes, 103 Catholic schools, 23 high schools, and 83 elementary schools serving 43,434 students. If half of the diocesan Catholic schools have to be replaced, the cost would be approximately $287,000,000. That does not include the damage to parishes.

Much of the money for repair and rebuilding will come from diocesan insurance coverage. Catholic Mutual covers all the dioceses hit by Katrina.

Based in Omaha, Nebraska, Catholic Mutual is the largest mutual self-insurance fund of the Catholic Church in North America. It provides property and casualty coverage to 111 dioceses (out of 195) in the United States, as well as 250 religious orders and other Catholic institutions (catholicmutual.com).

As a mutual self-insurance fund, Catholic Mutual is owned by the dioceses it insures. The level of exposure for Catholic Mutual is significant.

The insurer will not cover one aspect of rebuilding, however. Many times Catholic entities insure their buildings for the replacement cost of the structures above ground. Katrina will have left the ground of many structures completely unsuited for new construction. Extensive refilling and regrading — as well as infrastructure below ground — will have to be done. In most instances, this work is not covered by insurance carried for Catholic dioceses.

The way to recovery from Katrina is being exemplified by the adoption of the one diocese by another. The fact that the Catholic schools of Baton Rouge are prepared to take double the number of students is a breathtaking act of charity. No doubt there will be many more.

Deal Hudson is the head of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture.

Meet Fr. Javier Len, the most extraordinary priest I have met in a long time. Last month, I went to Peru to lecture at a Catholic university and to meet with several pro-life members of the legislature. Because of Fr. Javier, my trip turned into much more than lectures and political discussion.

My four days in Peru were spent as the guest of a remarkable religious community you may not have heard about, the “Sodality of Christian Life.” Sodality means “promise” or “friendship,” and in Peru, I encountered both.

My host was Alejandro Bermudez, a leader in the community and the director of the excellent Catholic News Agency. He had arranged for me to lecture at the community's university in Arequipa, the second largest city in Peru and the country's cultural center. Even if my trip had been confined to the eight-year-old San Pablo University, it would have been worth it.

San Pablo is a dynamic academic community of 1,000 students, located in the heart of the city. All students begin at the university by studying Ex Corde Ecclesiae and must complete three courses in Catholic philosophy and theology before graduating.

San Pablo University offers Catholic counseling for women and families. (In Peru, abortions are widely available for only $10.) Its teacher education program has satellites throughout the country, including villages in the Amazon rain forest, and for some of the locations the teachers must ride on horseback for hours to reach the villages.

San Pablo has already become the leading Catholic university in Peru and is now drawing students from adjacent countries. The older Catholic institutions, such as Catholic University of Lima, are centers of extreme left, radical feminist and pro-abortion ideology. Remnants of the liberation theology that thrived in Peru in the '70s and '80s still exist. (Remember the ex-nuns who assumed combat fatigues and protected terrorists in the name of the people?)

Without question, the Sodality's most inspiring apostolate was found in the hills just south of Arequipa among the poorest of the poor, the Indians who inhabit the huge shantytown of 400,000 which encircles the city. On these hills the priests, consecrated men and women, and others associated with the Sodality have created a small school of eight rooms, named San Juan, which teaches about 200 children from age 5 to 14. These volunteers belong to the “Christian Life Movement,” which the Sodality nurtures in many countries around the world.

The drive up to the school was heartbreaking, with block after block of stone fences set on hard, dry ground (scenes from Dante's Inferno repeatedly came to mind). Behind the fences were shacks of stone and wood scraps, and rusting tin roofs, where the people live day to day with neither plumbing nor running water. Electricity is rare. Yet the day I visited I found the children all smiles, laughing as they performed their folk dances for the visitor from the United States. In each class room I was greeted with a booming “good morning.”

At San Juan school the students get breakfast and lunch, in addition to a basic education. With the consent of their parents, children are prepared for First Communion and Confirmation in classes taught by ladies from the town and by volunteer catechists from Europe who offer their services for varying periods of time.

As I left the school, I overheard the conversation of a father of four of the students. It seemed that his fifth child had died recently because he lacked the three dollars needed to buy some medicine. Such stories are common, I was told.

Little did I know that San Juan was to be only my first stop that day among the poor of the shantytowns of Arequipa.

I spent that afternoon with nothing less than a force of nature…or should I say grace. Fr. Javier Len is the leader of the Sodality community in Arequipa, and the San Juan school is one of the many apostolates he has created among the poor. He also founded San Pablo University, but most of his work is done on the northern slopes of the city, which is where he took me.

He showed me the levels of shantytown, where on the lower slopes the older houses (some 30 years old) are more developed in sharp contrast to the middle and upper slopes where the homes seem uninhabitable. In the midst of these people, over the past 13 years Fr. Javier has built eight churches, a medical center, a home for the elderly, and various centers for children to play.

He has also placed water tanks at strategic points throughout the hills and manages to keep them full by means of regularly dispatched water trucks. “Other trucks charge these people twenty times the normal price for water,” he said.

Fr. Javier manages all these ministries, raises the money, and celebrates the Masses with very little help. In fact, his efforts and those of his community are the only sign of a Catholic presence among the poor of the slopes. The diocese does very little. And of no help are the local politicians, who not only demand payoffs for building permits but fail repeatedly to make good on promises of basic improvements to the infrastructure.

With an eye to the future, Father showed me land he wants to buy on which he'd like to build a high school and a bankrupt resort that he envisions as a retreat and conference center. Undoubtedly, Fr. Javier is a remarkable priest, one in whose presence it's easy to remember that with God all things are possible.

My last night in Peru was spent with a former prime minister and three representatives of the Peruvian Congress. We met to discuss their pro-life work in the congress. They told me their biggest obstacles were the NGOs, funded by the US State Department through USAID. The NGOs are using millions of American dollars to promote abortion, feminism, and gender rights in Peru, where 80 percent of the population is Catholic. They insist these NGOs should lose their funding.

I was most shocked to learn that during the '90s these same organizations were hired by the Peruvian government, under then President Fujimori, to commit atrocities. (I will present the details of this situation in a forthcoming article.)

Peru is not an economically powerful nation, but it has immense cultural influence in South America, especially along its eastern rim. In addition to Peru, the Sodality has set up other communities throughout the Americas and Rome.

The members of the Sodality community deserve to be better known. Their witness in Peru — especially that of Fr. Javier — is magnificent to see.

(Deal Hudson is the head of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture.)

At that time, I was asked to be part of the team advising on their outreach to Catholic voters. I agreed.

For too long, the Catholic vote had been misunderstood, in part because of the simple enormity and diversity of the Catholic population in America. The CRISIS model assumed the targetable, crucial part of the Catholic vote could be found among the Mass-attending faithful. Indeed, those voters who are religiously active are most likely to let their faith guide their voting decision.

Employing this strategy, Governor Bush received ten percent more of the Catholic vote in 2000 than Senator Dole had in 1996.

The present campaign, however, is very different from the last one.

Senator Kerry, a pro-abortion Catholic, became the Democratic-party nominee. The question of the Catholic vote went to center stage. Controversies ensued. Kerry insisted he was Catholic in spite of his support for abortion. I argued, loudly, that the election of John Kerry would be a disaster for the Church. My first press statement after his nomination was that Church institutions — parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. — should be off limits to Kerry or anyone who wants to use the platform of the Catholic Church to undermine its authority and attack its teachings.

It was then I learned that the moderator of the “Catholics for Kerry” Web site — a young man named Ono Ekeh — was an employee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. A few days after I pointed this out, he left his job at the Conference.

Right away, the phone rang and a reporter from a notoriously liberal Catholic publication requested a comment and an interview. A few days later, he came in to ask questions about my support for President Bush and the Catholic vote issues in general.

Weeks passed and no story. But then, over time, friends began telling me that the reporter was calling my past co-workers and associates and asking them about my personal life.

Last week, the article was published. In it, they dug up a truly embarrassing event from my past. Ten years ago, I committed a serious sin with an undergraduate student of mine while teaching at Fordham University. For this I am truly and deeply sorry. I have confessed this and asked for forgiveness, my family has worked through it, and time has passed. But I know this is news to you, and so I offer my sincerest apologies. I recognize that I have let countless people down and have brought scandal to myself, my family, and my Faith. For this, I beg your forgiveness.

Some may wonder why I speak of the event in a way that seems vague or abstract. Please don't mistake this for lack of shame, regret, or repentance. The simple fact is, I can't say any more about it. Ten years ago, I signed a confidentiality agreement, and so I'm seriously constrained in what I can say. I know this is frustrating for you, and so that's one more thing I apologize for.

I need to make one final point. There's much deserved condemnation coming down upon me right now, and I expect it will continue. But I do hope that this just anger will not spill over onto CRISIS Magazine. The simple fact is, CRISIS Magazine is far more than Deal Hudson. There is an entire staff of hardworking and faithful Catholics who, month after month, put together what has become the flagship publication for faithful Catholics. It would be a tragedy if my personal baggage were to harm CRISIS. Our many staff members, columnists, and writers have simply worked too hard and done too much good to be pulled down by my faults.

Please don't let that happen.

Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. You can reach him via email at hudson@crisismagazine.com.

It asked the candidates to give a “support or oppose” response so that the bishops could determine which candidate was most in line with Catholic teaching.

It all sounded pretty straightforward.

Unfortunately, the questionnaire made no moral distinction between any of the topics, burying critical life issues — abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and fetal stem-cell research — among scores of other issues that simply don't have the same moral weight and on which faithful Catholics are free to disagree.

Well, it looks like at least one bishop shares this concern. On Wednesday, Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, the bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, published a statement wondering about the usefulness of a questionnaire that doesn't make a distinction between imperative life issues and debatable social policy issues.

Bishop Gracida makes such excellent points that rather than just quote bits and pieces of his statement, I’d like for you to see the whole thing. Believe me, you want to read this:

STATEMENT OF BISHOP RENE HENRY GRACIDA ON THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE

I have had an opportunity to review a copy of the 2004 Presidential Questionnaire submitted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to President George Bush and Senator John Kerry. I am disappointed that the Questionnaire is so broad and covers so many issues that are before the American public today that its value in helping to show the differences between the positions of the two candidates on the really important issues will be minimal.

While certainly there could be and should be a “Catholic” position on most, if not all, of the issues covered by the Questionnaire, from the perspective of the Church's teaching some issues far outweigh others in importance. For instance, there is no moral equivalence between the issue of abortion-on-demand and farm subsidies. The Questionnaire should have been much shorter and should have been limited to questions on those issues on which there is a clear unequivocal teaching of the Church, e.g., abortion, cloning, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and marriage.

There is no clear unequivocal position of the Church on such issues as the minimum wage, immigration, farm subsidies, etc. The inclusion of questions in the Questionnaire can only result in confusion in the minds of Catholic voters who do not understand that there is no moral equivalence between these two groups of issues. I can only hope that both presidential candidates will refuse to reply to the Questionnaire, or, if they do reply, that the leadership of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will recognize the danger to Catholic voters and will publish those replies with a clear teaching on the greater importance which should be attached to the replies to the first group of questions I have listed above that have far greater moral implications for the nation.

+ Rene Henry Gracida

Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

10 August 2004

I only hope that his brother bishops — and those in charge at the USCCB — will make the same distinctions clear when the questionnaire is finally released to the public.

Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. You can reach him via email at hudson@crisismagazine.com.

Recently I assembled several past Kerry comments that seemed to show that Senator Kerry does not really oppose abortion — publicly or personally. For example, compare his recent statement with the remarks he made at last year's NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner:

“I think that tonight we have to make it clear that we are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade… There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life or health and there are no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. We need to take on this president and all of the forces of intolerance on this issue. We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for.”

Did you catch that? Not only should abortion be available to all American women, all the time, but it should be used as a population control valve around the world. And this is something we should “be proud of.” Not what you'd expect from someone who claims he doesn't like abortion.

And this isn't an isolated comment…

From the Boston Herald on January 23, 2001: “I will not back away from my conviction that international family planning programs are in America's best interests. We should resist pressures in this country for heavy-handed Washington mandates that ignore basic choices that should belong to free people around the globe.” Kerry's support for “international family planning programs” — a standard euphemism for “abortion” — is an issue he's advocated for some time. If Kerry is telling the truth about being “personally opposed” to abortion, why is he trying to spread it worldwide?

But perhaps the most outrageous quote comes from the 1994 Congressional record: “The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are — a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly-guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure…. [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice. And by the same token, if our children are to be safe from the danger of fanaticism, tolerance needs to spread out of the mainstream churches, mosques, and synagogues, and into the religious fringes.”

Abortion is simply “a medical procedure”? If that were true, then on what grounds could he possibly be personally opposed to it? He certainly doesn't seem to be struggling with the issue here. And how exactly does he propose to “spread tolerance” to the “religious fringes”? Presumably, he's referring to the people who, as an article of faith, believe abortion to be immoral. But didn't he just claim to be one of those very people? John Kerry says he believes that abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception. And yet he vows to do everything he can to make sure that women have the freedom and right to end that life.

You can say a lot of things about a position like that.

But you certainly can't say it's Catholic.

Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. You can reach him via email at hudson@crisismagazine.com.

The bishops touched on the hot topic of denying pro-abortion Catholic politicians Communion, but they ended up just punting it back to the individual bishops. So each bishop will have to decide how to proceed in his own diocese.

It certainly would have been nice to have something a little more concrete here. But at least the statement doesn't play down the danger pro-abortion Catholic politicians put themselves in: “To make [abortion] legal is itself wrong. …The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. …Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.”

But the most encouraging — and concrete — part comes later in the document. Regarding the public platforms that are sometimes given pro-abortion Catholic politicians, the bishops clearly state: “The Catholic community and 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.”

This is important. As noted in an article in the June issue of CRISIS (“The Enemy inside the Gates,” by Patrick J. Reilly), numerous Catholic schools and institutions have invited pro-abortion Catholics to speak or be honored. Not only does this undermine the Church's position on important moral issues, but it also comes dangerously close to sanctioning the anti-Catholic activities of these individuals.

Now that the bishops have stated unequivocally that these politicians should never be given any kind of award, honor, or platform, we can start looking to Catholic institutions to fall in line. While I won't hold my breath on the colleges, I'm certainly happy to see the bishops taking a strong step in the right direction. And just in time considering the battle brewing right now in the Senate.

This is something that could have a huge impact on all of us. I'm referring, of course, to the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which is a Constitutional amendment that says marriage is restricted to a man and a woman. As you may already know, the FMA will finally be put to a vote in the Senate on July 15th. That means there's little less than a month to rally the troops on this important issue in order to get the required 67 votes needed for passage. Enter the lobbyists… those individuals who try to shape public policy to reflect the positions of their particular interest group. The Catholic Church in America has its own lobbying arm, the Office of Government Liaison (OGL), directed by Frank Monahan. Headquartered at the USCCB, the Office represents the bishops' (and, in turn, Catholics') concerns before Congress.

You probably remember that a few weeks ago, Monsignor William Fay, the conference's general secretary, wrote us to insist that the bishops were fully behind the FMA and were doing everything they could to urge congressmen to support it.

Well, it's now time for the USCCB to step up to the plate and deliver on their promise. Currently, the FMA only has about 30 senators behind it, with another 23 senators undecided. As I mentioned, the bill needs 67 votes to pass, so it's still far from a sure thing. The next four weeks will be crucial in determining the ultimate success or failure of the bill, and that's where Frank Monahan and his staff come in.

While the OGL should be petitioning all senators for their support of the FMA, it's especially vital to focus on the 24 Catholic senators. Shockingly, 15 of those 24 senators are currently opposed to the bill, and four more are undecided. (I'll tell you who in a moment.)

Think about that: Only 1 in 5 senators who claim to be Catholic actually supports a bill that would enshrine marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That's truly devastating.

And that's why it's crucial that the USCCB does its very best in the next few weeks to lobby these senators — to remind them of the Church's clear teaching on marriage and their duty as senators in light of that teaching (especially on the heels of the bishops' statement from their Colorado meeting). For the record, those senators currently opposed to the bill are:

Joseph Biden (D-DE)

John Breaux (D-LA)

Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Susan Collins (R-ME)

Tom Daschle (D-SD)

Christopher Dodd (D-CT)

Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

John Kerry (D-MA)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Patty Murray (D-WA)

John Reed (D-RI)

Four senators are still, astonishingly enough, undecided. They are:

Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

John Sununu (R-NH)

George Voinovich (R-OH)

It's also important for us to recognize and appreciate those Catholic senators who have already taken a stand in support of the FMA. They are:

Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Pete Domenici (R-NM)

Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Monsignor Fay, Frank Monahan, and the rest of the folks at the USCCB certainly have their work cut out for them. But we're fully behind their efforts to persuade these senators to act in line with their self-professed faith. Over the next four weeks, we'll be reporting on the conference's progress in lobbying these senators. With God's grace, they will meet with much success.

Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. You can reach him via email at hudson@crisismagazine.com.

Following is a short description of the book, written by the person recommending it.

Deal Hudson, publisher, recommends:

Hamlet's Dresser: A Memoir

by Bob Smith

Hamlet's Dresser is one of the most enjoyable and enthralling reading experiences of my life. Its dust-jacket description fails to do justice to the poignancy of this memoir that highlights the summer the author spent dressing the actors at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Connecticut. This book contains much — about family and friends, the theatre and the Bard — that will stay with you. I passed along the audiobook, read beautifully by the author, to my wife who finished the six cassettes in three short days. Hamlet's Dresser is special treat, for Smith especially illumines the challenge of growing up Catholic in the 1950s.

The Shadow of the Wind

by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, translated by Lucia Graves

Trust me — this is the perfect book to take on vacation. So great is the enjoyment of it that the book seems to read itself. The story unfolds in the streets of post-war Barcelona, where ten-year-old Daniel discovers an unusual book in a forgotten library that instantly intrigues him. In the years of searching for the author, the boy Daniel meets a variety of characters that would have made Dickens proud — a roguish sidekick, a bloodthirsty detective, and a group of film-noir beauties that provoke Daniel into growing up more quickly than he should. Part fantasy, mystery, and thriller, it was impossible for me to put down. Note: There's some sexual content, so this is a recommendation for adults only.

*** Brian Saint-Paul, editor, recommends:

Ghosts of Manila: The Fateful Blood Feud Between Muhammad Ali And Joe Frazier

by Mark Kram

More than just a book about a famous fight, Mark Kram offers a haunting look at two ferocious warriors and the empty shells they have become. They went to Manila kings, Ali once said, and returned old men. Indeed, Ali and Frazier were never the same after this final confrontation. Kram has captured well the chaotic spirit of the mid-1970s — with all of its attendant tensions over politics and race. No boxing fan or devotee of the era should miss this beautifully written book.

Hellfire

By Nick Tosches

I don't particularly care for Jerry Lee Lewis, and I've never considered picking up anything that could be described as a “rock biography.” But with Nick Tosches, I made an exception. It was a good decision. If you've never read any of his biographies (The Devil and Sonny Liston, Dino, etc.), you're missing out on one of the most interesting non-fiction writers in America. Tosches has an astounding ability to convey place and time through his prose style. And in Hellfire, his writing has the earthy rhythm of the dusty, Pentecostal South from which his subject emerged. This is a dark tale, told very, very well.

*** Margaret Cabaniss, features editor, recommends:

Lincoln and Whitman: Parallel Lives in Civil War Washington

by Daniel Mark Epstein

Civil War histories are in superabundance, but Epstein manages to bring little-known details to life by focusing on the lives of a literary-minded president (Lincoln) and a politically-minded writer (Whitman). While the two never met, Whitman felt a deep affinity for Lincoln, expressed in two of his most famous poems: “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd” and “O Captain, My Captain.” Anyone familiar with Washington, D.C., will be fascinated by Epstein's vivid description of the city during the height of the Civil War — in many ways, still much the same today. Along the way, Epstein offers some interesting new insights on these towering historical figures.

My Antonia

by Willa Cather

Probably Cather's most famous work, it's easy to see why it has endured. Cather is a master of detail and brings the 19th-century American frontier to life in a way in which few writers are capable. The story of Bohemian immigrant Antonia Shimerda and her family is told without sentimentality or cliché, and the impression left by the characters is greater because of it. It's a book you can share with the family — accessible to younger readers, but equally moving for adults. A classic.

*** Zoe Romanowsky, development director, recommends:

Pasquale's Nose: Idle Days in an Italian Town

by Michael Rips

For a weekend at the beach, or simply to escape the ho-hum, here's a gem. Michael Rips, a fifth-generation Nebraskan turned sometimes New York City attorney, relates the tale of his hiatus to a small Etruscan village with his artist wife and child. Rips' search for meaning and wonder is woven into the story of his adjustment to Italian life. His charming, witty, and sometimes philosophical prose reveals a town full of quirky characters and ancient traditions.

*** Agnes Bunagan, development associate, recommends:

Characters of the Passion: Lessons on Faith and Trust

by Fulton J. Sheen

Fulton Sheen prepares the way for reflection as he draws on the lives of Peter, Herod, Pilate, Herodias, Claudia, and Judas — some of the main players in the Passion story. Through this cast of characters, Sheen challenges us to respond to Christ's example in the battle between the worldly and the divine. Life is a battle, he says, but one with a pledge of reward if we remain faithful. An easy read — no more than a hundred pages — this trim book contains words you will return to again and again.

The Making of Europe

by Christopher Dawson

Like a beautifully narrated and well-organized tour, Dawson recounts the complex interplay of myriad influences that has made Europe what it is today. This material traces the historical evolution and spiritual development of a group of distinct nations bound together by the rise and fall of empires, the emergence of Christianity and Islam, and the commingling of barbarism and classical tradition — all leading up to the establishment of a new order. A fascinating book that improves one's appreciation and understanding of the Old World.

*** Mary Hundt, development assistant, recommends:

Joan of Arc

by Mark Twain

Twain spent over a decade of his last years writing this historical novel on the life of Joan. Though scrupulously researched, it remains personal throughout the story of Joan's own powerful spirit and colorful friendships.

The Courage to be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church

by George Weigel

Weigel manages to condense in less than 250 pages a thoroughly honest and balanced review of all that transpired before and during the sex-abuse scandals. Likewise honest and balanced are his suggestions for reform.

*** Elena Cardenas, publishing assistant, recommends:

The Night of the Barbarians: Memoirs of the Communist Persecution of the Slovak Cardinal

by Jan Chryzostom Cardinal Korec, S.J.

Night of the Barbarians is an eyewitness account of the events which began the night of April 13, 1950 and ended December 8, 1968, when the totalitarian Czechoslovak state government shut down convents and monasteries and arrested religious leaders as “enemies of the state.” Cardinal Korec tells the story of his secret ordination to the priesthood, consecration as bishop, and his work in the underground Church, which would lead to his eventual arrest and imprisonment. The book not only describes events in the cardinal's life, but also provides a miniature history of the Slovak people. It's an excellent memoir of a true hero of the Faith.

How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life

by Peter Robinson

This book isn't just a biography of Reagan, but rather an engrossing story of how Peter Robinson, a Reagan speechwriter, was forever changed by his association with the president. The book, full of anecdotes, is both an enjoyable read and a nice primer on the simple life lessons that Reagan exemplified.

*** Trang Lam, graphic designer, recommends:

Thunder Point

by Jack Higgins

Higgins is known for his fun page-turners, and Thunder Point certainly delivers. The story of IRA terrorist Sean Dillon takes an ironic twist when he's hired by England's Secret Service to track down missing Nazi documents that could have huge repercussions for the British government. An exciting, fast read that's perfect for vacation travel.

*** Ann Guppy, publishing associate, recommends:

The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce

by Judith Wallerstein, Sandra Blakeslee, and Julia M. Lewis

Wallerstein revisits a group of children 25 years after their parents divorce and compares them with children of the same age and background from intact families. Their personal stories are compelling, and the results of the study are disturbing. Wallerstein concludes that divorce is never better for the children, despite what experts have been telling us. Children from intact families — even those in difficult marriages — are always better off.

(This review courtesy of the CRISIS magazine.)

Of course, this isn't always an easy thing to do, given the senator's strong support of abortion.

His strategy for getting away with this, though, is the same one used by so many “Catholic” politicians: He claims that while he's personally opposed to abortion, he can't let his religious belief get in the way of his policy-making.

In fact, he told a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, “What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith is an article of faith. And if it's not shared by a Jew or an Episcopalian or a Muslim or an agnostic or an atheist or someone else, it's not appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate your personal religious belief for the rest of the country.”

Furthermore, Kerry's Deputy Communications Director, Dag Vega, confirmed with us that the senator is “personally opposed” to abortion while still remaining pro-choice publicly and politically.

Now, the “personally opposed” nonsense is easy enough to answer, and many have done it before. Obviously, abortion isn't a matter of faith but a matter of the right to life that is promised every American in the Constitution. You certainly don't have to be Catholic — or even religious — to believe that.

But let's put all that aside for the moment…

What if I told you that John Kerry might not be telling the truth about being “personally opposed”?

No, I'm not presuming to read Kerry's mind. In this case, I don't have to…his statements on the matter speak for themselves. Not only are they not the words of someone who considers abortion a tragic necessity, but Kerry proves himself an ardent supporter of the growth of the abortion industry, both here and around the world.

But don't take my word for it. Have a look at what Kerry said at last year's NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner:

“I think that tonight we have to make it clear that we are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade…. There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life or health and there are no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. We need to take on this president and all of the forces of intolerance on this issue. We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for.”

Did you catch that? Not only should abortion be available to all American women, all the time, but it should be used as a population control valve around the world. And this is something we should “be proud of.” Not what you'd expect from someone who's “personally opposed” to abortion.

And this isn't an isolated comment…

From the Boston Herald on January 23, 2001: “I will not back away from my conviction that international family planning programs are in America's best interests. We should resist pressures in this country for heavy-handed Washington mandates that ignore basic choices that should belong to free people around the globe.”

Kerry's support for “international family planning programs” — a standard euphemism for “abortion” — is an issue he's advocated for some time. If Kerry is telling the truth about being “personally opposed” to abortion, why is he trying to spread it worldwide? That would be like me saying, “I personally oppose watching television, and it's about time we get a television in every home.”

And then there's this gem from the 1994 Congressional record: “The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are — a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure…. [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice. And by the same token, if our children are to be safe from the danger of fanaticism, tolerance needs to spread out of the mainstream churches, mosques, and synagogues, and into the religious fringes.”

Abortion is simply “a medical procedure”? If that were true, then on what grounds could he possibly be personally opposed to it? He certainly doesn't seem to be struggling with the issue here. And how exactly does he propose to “spread tolerance” to the “religious fringes”? Presumably, he's referring to the people who, as an article of faith, believe abortion to be immoral. But doesn't he claim to be one of those very people?

It just doesn't look like John Kerry is telling the truth on this. When he talks to Catholic and Hispanic groups, he plays up his personal struggle with abortion and his respect for Church teaching. But when his audience is less religious, he suddenly turns into a pro-abortion crusader.

In the end, his “personally opposed” rhetoric doesn't fly… Kerry clearly isn't personally opposed to abortion. It's just a dodge he's using to pander to religious voters.

I wonder how many Catholics will fall for it.

Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. You can reach him via email at hudson@crisismagazine.com.