Now that the U.S. presidential campaign and election are behind us, it should be possible to write about them without running the risk of seeming to stake out a partisan position for or against one of the candidates.

From a theological and pastoral point of view, the most disturbing development was the Republican campaign's blatantly political appeal to various religious churches and communities, and their readiness, in turn, to make themselves available for direct, partisan political service, either in support of President Bush or in opposition to Senator Kerry.

The archbishop of Denver defended his own involvement by insisting that people of faith have a right to speak out on moral issues of importance to them. No one can reasonably object to such a position.

The problem arises when the speaking out crosses the line into overt criticism of a particular candidate or, in another case, the granting of a politically beneficial photo-op with the favored candidate.

Both practices have been explicitly rejected by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a matter of conference policy. In the latest quadrennial statement issued by the USCCB Administrative Committee on behalf of the entire episcopal conference, the policy regarding the endorsement of candidates is clearly stated:

"As bishops, we seek to form the consciences of our people. We do not wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing or opposing candidates. We hope that voters will examine the position of candidates on the full range of issues as well as on their personal integrity, philosophy and performance. We are convinced that a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework from which to address issues in the political arena" (Origins, Oct. 23, 2003, p. 325; my emphasis).

"The 2004 elections and the policy choices we will face in the future pose significant challenges for our church. As an institution, we are called to be political but not partisan. The church cannot be a chaplain for any one party or cheerleader for any candidate. Our cause is the protection of the weak and vulnerable and defense of human life and dignity, not a particular party or candidate" (p. 329; emphasis in original).

Finally, "The church is called to be engaged but not used. We welcome dialogue with political leaders and candidates, seeking to engage and persuade public officials. But we must be sure that events and 'photo-ops' are not substitutes for work on policies that reflect our values" (p. 330; emphasis in original).

Back in 1988, the office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent to all bishops, diocesan attorneys and fiscal managers, and State Catholic Conference directors a 12-page document regarding the section of the Internal Revenue Code that pertains to the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. At the time, the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church was under legal challenge by a group known as Abortion Rights Mobilization.

Tax-exempt organizations, the USCCB document insisted, must "avoid statements that indirectly support or oppose a particular candidate, e.g., labeling a candidate as pro-abortion or anti-peace, using plus (+) or minus (-) signs to evaluate candidates, or using biased voter education materials."

In a column of mine that appeared a month after the USCCB document was released, I wrote the following:

"We should read of no bishop even implying (much less declaring) that a vote for Michael Dukakis is a vote for abortion, or that a vote for George Bush is a vote for life....

"Since a diocesan newspaper is an ecclesiastical house organ and the local bishop its publisher, we should be reading no editorial that recommends, even indirectly, a vote for one candidate over another.

"No congregation should hear its pastor criticizing or praising candidates or parties by name for their stands on issues that happened to be of special interest to himself, be they liberal or conservative issues.

"No parishioners should be handed a parish bulletin that seeks to disseminate information on candidates' voting records, nor should they have sample ballots or voter education materials stuck under their cars' windshield wipers in the church parking lot....

"Therefore, the first bishop who breathes a public word against candidate Michael Dukakis, even if it is 'only to clarify the teaching of the church,' should immediately be repudiated by his fellow bishops.

"The first pastor who uses his pulpit or parish facilities for anti-Dukakis or anti-Democratic political activities should be reprimanded publicly by his bishop."

That was in 1988. Only the names have changed from Bush-father to Bush-son, and from Michael Dukakis to John Kerry.

How did the Catholic Church do this time around? The record was mixed --- at best.

Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.