WASHINGTON -- On the opening day of their four-day meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops grappled with how to respond more effectively to Catholic politicians who consistently oppose what the church maintains are basic human rights, whether those rights pertain to fetuses, immigrants or convicted murderers.

"Some Catholic politicians defy church teaching in their policy advocacy and legislative votes, first and most fundamentally on the defense of unborn life, but also on the use of the death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority for the poor and welcome for immigrants. Some Catholic legislators choose their party over their faith, their ideology over Catholic teaching, the demands of their contributors over the search for the common good," said Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee, who led the discussion.

The conversation was the first stage in an attempt to develop U.S. guidelines for applying last year's "doctrinal note" from the Vatican on Catholic participation in public life. The Vatican paper is theologically complex, saying that matters of religion should not be imposed by civil law but that the innate value of each human being is the basis for universal human rights on which civil law should be based. It states that "no Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements."

One practical application of that understanding is expected to arise later in the meeting, when there are tentative plans to issue a statement declaring that equating homosexual unions with marriage is not the proper way to extend certain economic rights to gay people. But the most contentious such issue has been abortion, with some conservative lay people urging the bishops to excommunicate Catholic politicians with a strong record of advocacy for abortion rights. Some bishops, including Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, have forbidden such politicians to speak on church property.

Ricard, an African American, noted that religious and moral convictions were at the heart of the civil rights and anti-poverty campaigns, as well as the movement against abortion.

"In this effort we must be principled, courageous and wise. We need to persuade, not just proclaim, to engage, not condemn. But we also must tell the truth," Ricard said.

The guidelines -- which are not expected to be completed prior to the 2004 elections -- would be for local bishops to apply as they saw fit. Considerations are expected to include the difference between honoring a politician and engaging in appropriate dialogue with one, and the distinction between showing respect for the office and the office holder. The difference between moral principle and various political tactics for carrying it out will also be part of the guidelines, Ricard said.

Bishop Sylvester Ryan of Monterey, Calif., urged the bishops to consider the role of political parties. In his state, a Democrat who opposed abortion would find that "there is no support for them, financially or from the party itself," Ryan said.

Several bishops advised proceeding with caution. Although many priests and laypersons are troubled by the votes of Catholic politicians on both sides of the aisle, "we cannot cut ourselves off from respectful dialogue on these issues. ... There will always be issues on which they do agree [with the church]," said Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., who does much political heavy lifting for the bishops.

Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Sullivan of Brooklyn urged the bishops to seek counsel from academic experts so that they did not appear to be dictating partisan positions in an election. "This is one of the most complicated, delicate, politically loaded issues," he said.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. -- who in past years raised hackles of fellow bishops and others by excommunicating parishioners who belonged to organizations ranging from Planned Parenthood to a schismatic movement to restore the Latin Mass -- called for decisive action against Catholic politicians who advocate abortion rights. Without naming names, he criticized the bishops for including such a politician on their National Lay Review Board on sexual abuse -- an apparent reference to Leon Panetta, former U.S. representative from California.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago asked for a study of whether canon law permits bishops to invoke sanctions against offending politicians. "And if it does, is that the pastorally wise thing to do? If you looked at that [question], it would be quite helpful for many of us," he told Ricard.

Some bishops suggested that the most important thing was to do a better job of educating and persuading Catholics to vote for politicians who upheld Catholic positions on human rights. Bishop Robert Baker of Charleston, S.C., said the bishops might benefit from studying the success of Baptists in such matters.

"We need to look at our positions in the pulpit, in giving unified and clear positions on moral matters," he said.

The bishops' most consistent complaint was about Catholic politicians who claimed to be personally opposed to abortion but said they could not impose their moral standards on others.

"That's nonsense," said Bishop Joseph Galante, coadjutor of Dallas. "All politicians have, for better or worse, a moral perspective on the questions of the day and they operate that way whether their constituents agree with them or not."