Thanks. That cleared up for me what you were saying, especially #9
I think that the separation of Church and state prevents me personally from holding any kind of public office that would require me to pit my religious moral beliefs against the pluralism of our Constitution.
I must work for an organization that does accept it and I work with many other nurses who are advocates and have assisted. With my co-workers and managers I am vocal about my opposition. If that right to refuse was taken away from me, I would have to stop working in that field as well.
First of all, allow me to express my respect for your courage on these issues.
Pope John Paul II made an infallible and definitive statement on this issue, which was not really new. He simply repeats what has been held to be true for centuries. “I repeat the condemnation in the name of the whole Church. Whatever is opposed to life is a supreme dishonor to the Creator.”
There is no room here for Catholics to question the infallibility of this statement. Popes cannot teach moral error. If this is true, it must be true for everyone, not just Catholics. Therefore, it is equally binding on every one who knows this truth.
Then he goes on to say, “Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding. At the same time a new cultural climate is develloping and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and if possible even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion judstify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom and democracy.”
Apparently, a defintion of democracy that allows individual freedom to do evil and destroy life isn ot what God had in mind.
We have to choose between God’s understanding of human freedom and our national understanding of human freedom. But as long as they are opposed to each other, the national understanding cannot be right. We can choose the definition that is right or the definition that is popular.
This is where the rubber meets the road and excommunication enters into the picture. When we choose something other than what God would have us choose, we sever our ties with him and with his people.
God does not rule by the voice of the governed. He rules by his own laws. In a democracy, it is unconscionable for a person who knows the fulness of truth not to express that knowledge and not to demand that his/her government create laws according to the Truth. There is no legal reason for a person of faith not to challenge and question the laws of the nation.
As far as separation of Church and state, this is one of those lies that has been promulgated by those who wish to promote a secularist government in the USA. The Constitution says that the state shall not adopt an official religion. It does not say that the state shall close its ears to religion. In fact, the state has never done so. Everyone of our legal documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the inauguration oath of a president mention God. Does the President not place his hand on a Christian bible to take the oath of office? He does not place it on the Q’uran or the Torah, even though he does, because the Torah is included in the Christian bible.
To this day, the government pays religious groups to assume certain obligations of the state that the latter cannot fulfill. If we had such separation, the government would be unable to make these contracts. Let’s not foget that George Washington desperately asked James Carrol to sign the Articles of Confederation, because Carrol was the cousin the the Catholic Archbishop of the United States, John Carrol. Washington wanted to have the Catholic support. If he got on the good side of Bishop Carrol, this was easier to do.
George Washington also worked very hard to gain the support of the Anglican Church in the USA, which was just beginning to redefine itself as Episcopal, but had allegience to the Archbishop of Canterberry. Washington became a councilman at St. Stephens Episcopal Church in Falls Church, VA, (my home town), just a few miles away from Mt. Vernon. He had never set foot in an Episcopal church until he needed their support with the voters in VA and NY.
Didn’t Nancy Pelosi make a public statement about it being St. Joseph’s feast and about receiving the support of Catholic nuns on the healthcare bill? Of course she failed to mention that these nuns were dissident and did not represent the large number of sisters they claimed to represent. But let’s just assume that she did not know this. Now she knows. These nuns have gradually lost their posts in the medical community. Ms. Pelosi has no mentioned this. Why was it important to tell the press that she had the support of Catholic nuns?
Is the separation of Chruch and state as real as we think or is it just a lie that has been taught to us? Finally, why can’t a public official be guided by his or her faith? Who wants public officials who are guided by the turn of the tide? Would we rather have that or public officials who are gounded in moral principles that are not easily shaken by the popular opinion?
Plato once wrote that a true democracy is where the governed have the right to make their needs known to those who govern and where those who govern protect the governed from harm. It is not where the government either does or allows evil. That was not in the definition of democracy.
Finally, to get back to the original post of this thread, the sister in question violated a grave moral law. She went with a popular belief concerning human life, instead of going with revealed truth. She severred her communion with Truth. No one broke the ties except herself.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
