Article Written by Father Pisut for the Chariton Newspaper

This article was written by Father Pisut in Fall 2008 before the general election.

As Christians we believe that all persons are created with equal dignity in the sight of God. Because of this our Founding Fathers state in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Because of this spiritual and legal reality all Americans have the right to bring their views to bear in the public forum of debate and discourse. For those Americans who have attained the legal voting age, we are also then free to make our will known in such matters by the utilization of the ballot box.

A difficult reality of the American political landscape is the often-touchy subject of religion. The question of God was clearly present in the minds of those who began this country when the proclaimed the “Creator” as the source of our “unalienable Rights.” Out of respect for religion and each person’s own human dignity and right to come to know God our Founding Fathers stated in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

All to often, however, one gets the impression that only the first part of that clause has and meaning in the political sense. In the jurisprudence surrounding religion the emphasis has been on what has been know as the “Non-Establishment Clause.” Often reference is made to the quote of Thomas Jefferson of a “wall of separation between Church and State.” This quotation, however, stems from personal correspondence of Jefferson and not the U.S. Constitution. We must remember the “Free Exercise Clause” has just as much legal weight as the “Non-Establishment Clause.” This is important to remember. All to often in the public forum of political discourse when Christians seek to make their will know, the claim is often made that we are attempting to force our religious views upon others. Because of the separation of Church and State guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, it is claimed, we have no right to do so.

There are two important issues to examine here. The first is in regards to the true meaning of the separation of Church and State. The intent of this part of the first Amendment was to prohibit the establishment of a creedal religious state as was common in much of Europe at the time and can be found in various Islamic countries still today. Such regimes impose official adherence to a specific religion along with it accompanying unique theological beliefs. Likewise, adherence to any other religion is prohibited or at least severely restricted. This is what the First Amendment sought to protect against in order to safeguard the rights of others. Today, when Christians seek to make their voices known in the public forum and at the voting box this is not what we are seeking to do. We are not attempting to impose a specific religion or even a generic Christian one. We are not attempting to enact legislation that would require all persons to call themselves Christian and accept that Jesus Christ is God and is our Lord and Savior. We are not attempting to force people to believe that God is a Trinity of Persons. We are not seeking to have people punished for not believing such things. To do so would be the establishment of a state religion and would be a violation not only of the First Amendment but also of the God given freedom of all persons.

What we as Christians are trying to bring to the public forum are universal moral issues, not specifically religious ones. As such they are human issues and not political issues. True, many of the moral issues, which are of concern, have been greatly politicized. Their origins are not in politics but are at root fundamental to humanity. The Catholic Church, and many other Christians, focus on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, the death penalty, care of the poor and immigration. These are broadly called life issues and have their roots in what is known as the Natural law. Contrary to what many may think. Natural law is not a religious concept. Natural law is a concept deriving from pre-Christian Greek philosophy, which claimed that one could observe the rightness or wrongness of an act by looking at the natural workings of the world. It is as much an early form of scientific inquiry as it is a philosophical concept. This approach was broadly adopted by western society and was universally accepted until the past few centuries. Indeed many of the arguments behind the various moral positions of Christian concern can be backed up by science. Anyone, religious or not, can understand these issues as true by logic, reason and the working of nature. While many Christians espouse strong moral positions and claim them as part of their faith, they do not stem from the creedal belief of a revealed religion but rather the scientific natural ordering of the world, non-believers can come to the same conclusion by scientific inquiry. A Christian, however, comes to a deeper understanding of these moral issues as rooted in the Natural Law by a fuller understanding of the meaning of life, love and death as revealed to us by Jesus Christ.

Often, however, all life issues (which include sexual morality issues since the two are intricately linked by nature) are perceived as having the same moral weight. This perspective is often belied by the expression of “seamless garment.” Life issues, however, do vary in their gravity and thus their approach. Many issues the Catholic Church holds to be extremely important but at the same time recognizes that there can be a divergence of opinions about the best way to handle them. The Church champions the poor as a moral imperative yet also recognizes that one can differ on the best way to assist them. Some may favor more government intervention while other may favor the role of the private sector. The Church asserts the rights of all to immigrate to better themselves out of respect for their personal freedom and human dignity yet also recognizes the role of the state to regulate immigration. Therefore, there can be a divergence of opinions on immigration policy.

There are other moral issues, which, while possible, allow for less of a divergence of opinions. While opposed to war the Church recognizes that there is such a thing as a just war if various criteria are met. These would include exhausting one’s diplomatic options, responding to aggression, proportionality and a good chance of success. Yet, while these criteria are often difficult to meet there is still the possibility of a just war. The Church is a firm opponent of the death penalty. However, even though the Church opposed the death penalty it also recognizes the right of the state to have recourse to capital punishment. However, this is not for the mere punishment of the offender but only if there is no other way to protect the welfare of society. While the Church recognizes that this need is practically nonexistent it still does allow for this exception.

Some things, however, do not allow for exceptions. Abortion, the taking of a human life, is always morally evil. Likewise, euthanasia is always evil. Embryonic stem cell research is also evil. Despite the good motive of finding cures it still involves the killing of innocent human life. Here it must be pointed out that the Church is not against stem cell research in general, which has proven to be quite viable, but against embryonic stem cell research, which involves the taking of innocent human life and has produced no cures. Human cloning is the removal of the creation of human life from its origin in the natural act of a man and woman in the context of marriage. Likewise, gay marriage is considered as opposed to the natural law since anthropologically speaking all cultures and societies are based upon the family unit of a husband and wife, which procreates and sustains itself and society through the biological act of intercourse. Neither of these exists in gay marriage. Lastly, abortion stands as the fundamental life issue of all since no lasting argument can be made for the protection and aiding of life at varying stages if the right to life itself is not protected.

These are all issues that have been brought to public forum amidst much rancor and hostility. Because of the very broad and inaccurate misunderstanding of the term “Separation of Church and State” once someone is perceived as imposing religion then their viewpoints are automatically excluded from the public forum. By this line of reasoning any viewpoint, as long as it is not seen as religious, is acceptable in the public forum. Yet, the reality remains that all of us have the right to participate in the public forum. The “Free Exercise Clause” of the first Amendment gives us the right to bring these issues to public debate. Public Discourse is not restricted to everything except religion. Though the moral issues which the Catholic Church, and many other Christians, champion are perceived as specifically and uniquely religious issues by many they are in fact universal human issues rooted in the natural law and knowable to all. By that fact they touch upon everyone, believer and non-believer alike. Because of this, not only are such issues appropriate for the public forum and the ballot box, they are in fact essential.