(Continued from Front Page)

The following statement by Archbishop George H. Niederauer, " Religion and Politics - 2008, " was released in 2007.

Introduction:
What is the proper relationship between religion and politics? Should there be any relationship at all? In recent years in this country those questions have arisen not only during election campaigns but also year round, every year. Often the ensuing debate generates more heat than light. As we approach another election year, the United States Catholic bishops have prepared a document entitled " Faithful Citizenship, " intended to apply Catholic moral and social teaching to the issues that presently confront voters. The bishops have issued such a document for each of the past seven presidential election cycles.

" Faithful Citizenship " is not a voter ' s guide, nor does it endorse particular candidates or parties. Instead, it is intended to help Catholics recognize and understand the implications of their faith for their conduct as citizens of this country. As Archbishop of San Francisco I am aware of the high level of political consciousness and energy in this Archdiocese, and of the rich and challenging diversity of its people. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate to address some basic questions about the relationship between religion and politics, and to do so now, before candidates have been nominated and party platforms completed, so that we can look at these questions for their own value, and not misinterpret them as veiled endorsements or condemnations.

I have chosen the question - and - answer format. I want to prompt readers to obtain a copy of " Faithful Citizenship " when it is available at their parishes after the first of the year. That booklet will contain a much more complete treatment of this important topic. ( The U.S. bishops ' statement, " Faithful Citizenship, " also can be found at www.usccb.org )

Q: Doesn ' t separation of church and state mean that religion and politics should have nothing to do with each other?

A: Religion and politics, church and state, should be independent of each other. However, both politicians and religious leaders rightly - and unavoidably - concern themselves with many of the same issues. Ethicists and moral teachers address the principles of right and wrong in human behavior, and those principles guide both believers and citizens. For instance, the question of how best to care for the poor and the homeless challenges religious and civil leaders alike, and it is only sensible that they communicate and even collaborate on the answers. A recent Vatican document makes the point that the political sphere has a " rightful autonomy . . . from that of religion and the Church - but not from that of morality. "

The United States of America has a long tradition of religious and civil leaders dealing with many of the same issues. Consider two examples: in the 19th century both churchgoers and voters confronted the issue of slavery. Indeed, the abolition movement was easily as much the work of churches as of political leaders. Similarly, in the 20th century, ministers, priests and rabbis, as well as religious women and men, prodded politicians to commit themselves to the civil rights movement.

Q: Why should a Catholic bother with politics at all? It all seems pointless, sordid and " fixed. "

A: The Catholic Church teaches that all citizens should take an active part in public life. Education, public safety and law enforcement, health care, and so many essential matters depend for their quality on the direct participation of citizens in the political process. Shrugging cynically and strolling away from any involvement is not a proper response for a follower of Jesus Christ. Ideally, of course, individual members of a party or movement should transform it by a thoughtful application of moral principles, rather than being transformed by it.

Q: What moves the Catholic Church to teach about political issues?

A: Jesus Christ in the Gospel teaches us about being fully human, about what is true and good in the sight of God. At the foundation of these truths is respect for the dignity of each person, created in God ' s image, and the value of each human life. The bedrock of Catholic moral and social teaching rests on the dignity and value of life and personhood. It is appropriate and necessary for Christians to bring and apply those essential truths into the public square. As Catholics we are called to promote the wellbeing of all, to share blessings with the neediest in society, and to protect the lives and dignity of all, especially the weak, the vulnerable and the voiceless.

In addition, Catholics bring important assets to political dialogue: a consistent moral framework based in human reason, the Scriptures and Church teaching, and broad experience in serving those in need.

Q: Don ' t critics of the Catholic Church increasingly condemn it for interfering inappropriately in public life and trying to impose its doctrine on the entire community?

A: Such criticism is on the increase. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O ' Connor of Westminster, England, is on target when he speaks of a " new secularist intolerance of religion, " a " secular dogmatism and cynicism toward Christians. " The cardinal continues: " So when Christians stand by their beliefs they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites. When they take the side of the poor they are softheaded liberals. When they seek to defend the family they are right - wing reactionaries. "

In this country we can all name newspapers that applaud bishops who oppose the death penalty as courageous moral leaders, and condemn as intrusive dogmatists those same spokesmen when they oppose physician - assisted suicide. Actually, Catholic social teaching does not fit easily into ideologies of " right " and " left, " or the platform of any one political party. We do not trim our teaching of fundamental moral principles to fit the demands of our critics, so they in turn blow hot and cold toward us.

Q: Are you saying that churches should tell people how to vote?

A: What religious leaders can and should teach is the importance of an informed conscience as a guide for all human activity, and, in particular, teach how to form one ' s conscience for making the choices involved in the political process. Certainly churches should urge their members to vote, to participate fully in the democratic process. However, a church should not tell its members which candidates or parties to vote for.

Q: What do you mean by " conscience " ?

A: The document " Faithful Citizenship " says it well: " Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere ' feeling ' about what we should or should not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound moral judgments based on the truths of our faith. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church. "

Q: Isn ' t the Catholic Church really interested only in abortion and euthanasia?

A: No. The Catholic Church teaches that the primary human right is life. Without human life, no other human rights matter. Thus " Faithful Citizenship " concludes that abortion and euthanasia have become primary threats to human life and human dignity because they directly attack life itself. This moral preeminence of abortion and euthanasia must be reflected in the discernment of voters as they seek to form their consciences during the coming election campaign. Such a preeminence does not discard the moral importance of other issues in the 2008 campaign, but it does mean that abortion and euthanasia should exercise a special claim upon the consciences of voters.

Q: Doesn ' t that answer sound as if any issue except abortion and euthanasia is a second - rate issue, undeserving of the Catholic Church ' s time, energy and attention?

A: In " Faithful Citizenship " the U.S. bishops teach that Catholics should avoid two errors. The first consists in making no distinctions among different kinds of moral issues involving human life and dignity. Such an error would lead someone to conclude that all issues have equal weight. For example, a politician might say in effect to Catholic voters, " Well, I ' m with you on raising the minimum wage, so can ' t you cut me some slack on abortion and physician - assisted suicide? "

The second error to be avoided consists of reducing Catholic moral and social teaching to one or two issues, and refusing to be concerned about a wide range of issues. " Faithful Citizenship " states quite forthrightly: " Racism and other unjust discrimination, torture, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger and lack of health care, or unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns that can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on those issues. "

Besides, Catholics don ' t merely talk about those concerns; they do something about them as well. Catholics have broad experience in serving those in need - educating the young, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, helping women face difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, welcoming immigrants and refugees, reaching out in global solidarity, and pursuing peace.

Q: It ' s now nearly 35 years since the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion. Isn ' t it time for the Catholic Church to stop opposing the settled law of the land?

A: The United States Supreme Court is not infallible. It has handed down seriously flawed judgments in the past and can do so again. In 1856, in the Dred Scott decision, the Court found that a slave was property and hence had no personal rights. The Civil War and some Constitutional amendments corrected that mistake. Another example: In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court declared that separating school children by race was permissible according to the U.S. Constitution. After almost 60 years, the Court reversed itself in Brown v. The Board of Education ( 1954 ) . A third example: During the Second World War the Court declared constitutional the forcible internment in camps of American citizens of Japanese origin. Decades later Congress apologized for this action by the federal government and voted to indemnify the survivors of those camps.

With regard to Roe v. Wade, Catholics are not alone in questioning the Court ' s decision. The liberal political columnist Michael Kinsley has commented: " Although I am pro - choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning, and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. "

Q: May a Catholic vote for a candidate who takes a position directly opposed to Catholic moral teaching?

A: " Faithful Citizenship " gives this answer: " There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate ' s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reason. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests, or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

" When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate, or after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods. "

Q: Doesn ' t the moral perspective of the Catholic bishops on the issues facing voters in 2008 simply deny the reality of today ' s partisan divide and political choices?

A: Yes, the Catholic Church denies the reality and logic of a political structure in which citizens are forced to choose between protecting unborn children and fighting the horrors of global poverty because there are no viable candidates willing to do both. We deny the reality and logic of a political structure that prevents the emergence of candidates pledged to fighting the evil of euthanasia while seeking comprehensive justice on the issue of immigration.

Most Reverend George H. Niederauer, Ph.D.
Archbishop of San Francisco