Archbishop Addresses Church’s Role in Civic Arena

Archbishop George H. Niederauer, head of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco, recently issued Religion and Politics – 2008, a statement intended to guide Roman Catholics on the proper relationship between religion and politics.  The statement reflects much of the advice contained in Faithful Citizenship, a document prepared by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  According to Archbishop Niederauer, “‘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.”

The Archbishop continues:

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.”

Addressing the Catholic Church’s opposition to Roe v. Wade and specifically answering the question whether the Catholic Church should now stop opposing “the settled law of the land,” the Archbishop writes:

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. ”

VEJ