When Church teaching and secular law clash

[Cirdan_XII]

Various recent threads on abortion and also gay marriages etc have brought me to think about thev relationship between Church and secular law.

Looking at the Ten Commandments, which form the backbone of all Church Teaching, we see a lot of “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not” but never do we see “Thou shalt prevent others from” or “Thou shalt force others to”

Thus can we conclude that these Commandments are not intended to be a basis for secular law but more personal guidelines on how to lead our lives and do honour and glory to God in our everyday actions.

God thus tells us “Thou shalt not kill”, but he does not say “Thou shalt prevent others from killing, and though shalt not through negligence or inaction prevent others from being killed”. There is thus no call for us to prevent say executions or euthanasia or suicide or abortion. But we should avoid having any involvement or guilt in such cases. In fact when the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus he did not deny that she deserved death or attempt to explain that the Mosaic law was no longer valid. No, he said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. The only person without sin was Jesus himself and he did not cast the first stone, thus teaching us that neither should we. It would thus be wrong for a Catholic to assist in an abortion or work as an executioner for example.

Of course there is some contradiction here when it comes to our tax money being used to facilitate abortions or executions or other killings. Becase Jesus also tells us we should pay tax (give unto Caesar etc).

So the question is, to what extent is it legitimate for Catholics to inflitrate the state and try to form it in the image of Catholic teaching. In the Bible we have examples such as King David who was not only God’s chosen king but also a secular ruler and largely just and righteous in his rule. So all this talk about separation of Church and State isn’t really as Christian as we like to fool ourselves But where do we start and where do we stop?

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

There is no real call for separation of Church in state in the Constitution.

John Locke came up with that garbage with secularizing government.

The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”, while Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The constitution was based on Christian principles.

The Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

• by protecting evil-doers.

 

[jeffryan]

So the question is, to what extent is it legitimate for Catholics to inflitrate the state and try to form it in the image of Catholic teaching. In the Bible we have examples such as King David who was not only God’s chosen king but also a secular ruler and largely just and righteous in his rule. So all this talk about separation of Church and State isn’t really as Christian as we like to fool ourselves But where do we start and where do we stop?

What about the spiritual works of mercy which tells us as Christians to admonish the sinners, instruct the ignorant, council the doubtful? I agree nothing should be “forced” but we are sent to share the Good News of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ not to take a back seat and say - it’s not my problem. Even Jesus said “go forth and sin no more.”
Just because people don’t understand what separation of Church and State is supposed to accomplish doesn’t mean that the Church’s stand on morals is any less relevent.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There is no real call for separation of Church in state in the Constitution.

John Locke came up with that garbage with secularizing government.

And thanks be to God for John Locke’s work, for those of us who are Catholic Americans would not have an easy time of it living under a Protestant, evangelical government.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

And thanks be to God for John Locke’s work, for those of us who are Catholic Americans would not have an easy time of it living under a Protestant, evangelical government.

I don’t like Locke’s ideas. What was needed to be said, was said in the establishment clause. That was all that was needed. He didn’t have to push for an all-out secular government.

 

[Warrenton]

Thus can we conclude that these Commandments are not intended to be a basis for secular law but more personal guidelines on how to lead our lives and do honour and glory to God in our everyday actions.

You must read the decalogue in context. Read Leviticus, which also contains them, and keep reading in Exodus when the other laws are revealed that are to govern the Israelites. Then, you will see the relationship between personal holiness and corporate holiness.

That is the meaning of the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

The community/individual dichotomy is a false one.

 

[essie7777]

This is an interesting subject and more recently has been an area of thought and prayer for me.

I am not american by birth and struggle with the idea that the political process would even cover issues such as abortion.

As difficult as it is to accept NOT everyone in the country, nor the world, has the same religious beliefs as me.

When we read about other countries where leadership is dictating what religious beliefs should be followed by the general population America is notoriously the first in line to say this is unacceptable. Thousands of soldiers have died in the last 10 years based on this premise.

I find myself asking why dictating religion from a minority to the majority of peoples is unacceptable everywhere else but here in america that is what it seems we are trying to do.

This is an amazing contradiction for a country founded only a few hundred years ago on the basis of freedom of speech and thought. It seems at times that i hear the excuse “but our faith is better” and “we are the only Church”, i wonder whether we would be so vocal in this opinion if we actually lived under a dictatorship where death and torture are standard when you disagree with the political ruling views.

Are we not using the freedoms granted in this country to try and take away those rights from people who don’t agree with us? Is that not a sin itself?

 

[preferanonymous]

“Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince”

John Locke in A Letter concerning Toleration. The Church to which he refers is the Roman Catholic Church. Some separation!

 

[promethius]

I don’t like Locke’s ideas. What was needed to be said, was said in the establishment clause. That was all that was needed. He didn’t have to push for an all-out secular government.

You are aware that John Locke was a British Citizen/philosopher who wrote in the 17th century and died 83 years before the constitution was adopted, right? John Locke died without ever hearing what the “establishment clause” entailed. He likewise never pushed for ANYTHING in American politics… having died 72 years before the American Revolution…

 

[Langdell]

… So the question is, to what extent is it legitimate for Catholics to inflitrate the state and try to form it in the image of Catholic teaching. In the Bible we have examples such as King David who was not only God’s chosen king but also a secular ruler and largely just and righteous in his rule. So all this talk about separation of Church and State isn’t really as Christian as we like to fool ourselves But where do we start and where do we stop?

Trying to make government and, ultimately, society as a whole more righteous does not implicate the Constitution. You don’t have to be a Christian to be opposed to abortion or prostitution or same-sex “marriage.”

 

[Calgar]

You don’t have to be a Christian to be opposed to abortion or prostitution or same-sex “marriage.”

That’s the truth.

And everyone, please stop letting people get away with saying “separation of church and state”. There is no such law, and it certainly isn’t in the constitution. I bet many people hear it so often that they don’t know that it’s not.

 

[jonbhorton]

You are aware that John Locke was a British Citizen/philosopher who wrote in the 17th century and died 83 years before the constitution was adopted, right? John Locke died without ever hearing what the “establishment clause” entailed. He likewise never pushed for ANYTHING in American politics… having died 72 years before the American Revolution…

Hey, no confusing chronological facts with conclusions outside of the chronology which gives them context and merit. We need to get our money’s worth out of the DOE, and thinking logically is uncalled for in that end.

This is an interesting subject and more recently has been an area of thought and prayer for me.

Excellent! Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away, and prayer is first and foremost our best personal weapon against these immoral and unconscionable practices

**I am not american by birth and struggle with the idea that the political process would even cover issues such as abortion.
**

Anything which the populace raises as a concern must be addressed. The argument is generally along the lines of “bettering” society, though it fails miserably in practice.

**As difficult as it is to accept NOT everyone in the country, nor the world, has the same religious beliefs as me. **

Of course not. But pretty much every abortion boils down to selfishness, not religion or moral code. Pride, mainly, is what kills these children. Pride and fear.

**When we read about other countries where leadership is dictating what religious beliefs should be followed by the general population America is notoriously the first in line to say this is unacceptable. Thousands of soldiers have died in the last 10 years based on this premise. **

I know of no soldier who has died protecting anyone’s right to religious freedom. In fact, it appears based on recent reports that our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have actually sealed the deal on mohammedanism gaining an even stronger grip on the region.

I find myself asking why dictating religion from a minority to the majority of peoples is unacceptable everywhere else but here in america that is what it seems we are trying to do.

Over 75% of Americans claim Christianity. The minority is dictating to the majority.

This is an amazing contradiction for a country founded only a few hundred years ago on the basis of freedom of speech and thought. It seems at times that i hear the excuse “but our faith is better” and “we are the only Church”, i wonder whether we would be so vocal in this opinion if we actually lived under a dictatorship where death and torture are standard when you disagree with the political ruling views.

Personal freedom ends when it has an effect on another person’s personal freedom. But the effect is unidirectional. I cannot have my freedom denied because of your decision, and then be labeled as against the freedom which you are exercising when I cry foul.

**Are we not using the freedoms granted in this country to try and take away those rights from people who don’t agree with us? Is that not a sin itself?
**

No. They are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are not guaranteed the right to achieve those things outside of natural moral law, or that which is ultimately harmful to others, or against the principle of another person’s freedom to exercise their rights. Most of what we consider extensions of rights in this country are actually not rights at all, but abuses of the right in principle.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

I see this issue as two pronged. The first question is whether a citizen is called by his state to use his Catholicism when participating in civics. The second part of the issue is whether a Catholic is called by their faith to push Catholicism’s morals/ideal onto the other citizens of the state. I read the OP’s post as addressing this second prong, and now others have chimed in with questions about the first part of the issue.

I think the answer to the first question is an unequivocal Yes because the State is created by its citizens for its citizens. So those citizens can make laws based on whatever motivations the citizens have—subject to the US Constitution. It’s a legitimate act of citizenship to inform your voting with any Truth you have access to, and it’s important to do so because other citizens may not have access to it. In the end, the majority wins out. And the Constitution then protects the minority.

The answer to the second is something I’m not qualified to address. My assumption is that the answer is “Yes.” I get this from some of the Cathecism which seems like it’s telling us to use our powers as citizens to make things a bit more heavenly in our states:

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

The political community and the Church

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

 

[essie7777]

Anything which the populace raises as a concern must be addressed. The argument is generally along the lines of “bettering” society, though it fails miserably in practice.

I appreciate that concerns should be addressed, what i find difficult to marry up is trying to rule though the eyes on a faith. To be honest i’m not sure any faith in any country should dictate policy.

My example of abortion was probably not a good one to pick as i not wanting to start a debate on abortion, simply how you balance state for everyone and faith for those who follow.

Whilst you are correct that over 75% in the US identify as Christian, of that 75% the majority 52% is Protestant, Catholics only account for 23%. Our viewpoint is not the majority. If laws were designed solely on evangelical Church teaching – the largest group under the Christian banner at 26% i’m pretty sure as Catholics we would up in arms about being ignored by the state minority or not. Data from religions.pewforum.org

I have always seen government’s function in regard to laws; as protecting the individuals of the population whilst trying to balance the desires of the majority and the wishes of the minority. Politics is all about compromise.

It is then down to an individual to judge their own morality. If a person doesn’t agree with a specific law they would need to balance whether following their own moral compass on that said law would mean breaking secular law. Then they need to make a choice as to whether they are comfortable with breaking secular law on that issue or not. It is here that a person will be guided by their faith.

When we read about other countries where leadership is dictating what religious beliefs should be followed by the general population America is notoriously the first in line to say this is unacceptable. Thousands of soldiers have died in the last 10 years based on this premise.

I actually wasn’t referring to Iraq and Afghanistan - although they do bear close relation as Western countries are fighting there under a banner of “freedom” which includes the right to religious freedom.

They are not guaranteed the right to achieve those things outside of natural moral law,

Isn’t natural moral law subjective depending on what someone may believe in? There are differences for all faiths on specifically what is moral law?

I find this issue to be highly emotive to people and very frustrating.

Jesus never tried to form a government, the Papal documents recognize the right and role of the state in all areas of life, and Church teachings deal with specific areas of moral law so we are aware of the Church’s position.

So why is there such an emphasis in the US on trying to put religion right in the center of government and law making? I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church does not advocate creating a government state in its name – ignoring the right of choice for all individuals --which is surely the basis of out faith; we all choice to follow.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

So why is there such an emphasis in the US on trying to put religion right in the center of government and law making? I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church does not advocate creating a government state in its name – ignoring the right of choice for all individuals --which is surely the basis of out faith; we all choice to follow.

In the United States, the state is a creation of the people. And it’s created for the people. If those people are religious people, then the truths those people obtain from their religious backgrounds will undoubtedly become a part of the public discussion when debating legislation that implicates morality.

If religion is at the center of public discourse, it’s only because it is at the center of the people. That’s precisely how a representative democracy should work.

I’m a couple days late, but I point you directly to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King as an example. The truth that all men are created equal and what that meant for public policy was something he knew from his belief in God. He justified changes to public policy based on his Christianity.

 

[essie7777]

In the United States, the state is a creation of the people. And it’s created for the people. If those people are religious people, then the truths those people obtain from their religious backgrounds will undoubtedly become a part of the public discussion when debating legislation that implicates morality.

If religion is at the center of public discourse, it’s only because it is at the center of the people. That’s precisely how a representative democracy should work.

I’m a couple days late, but I point you directly to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King as an example. The truth that all men are created equal and what that meant for public policy was something he knew from his belief in God. He justified changes to public policy based on his Christianity.

I don’t disagree with what you say.

What i find most interesting is the basis that this “public discussion” may take.

If a faith’s religious belief has been proven not to be reflected by the majority of the population the conversation leaves the realm of discussion and becomes unbelievably abusive and counter productive.

TBH it comes across as fanatical militancy (and on some issue they are arguing what i believe an even i question the tactics and “headlines”!).

It seems that the basis for disagreement disappears from the argument and it becomes a free for all on the majority of the population any accusation and demeaning comment is suddenly acceptable. The issues are no longer being discussed but there are personal attacks, unjustified criticism against individuals publically, fabricated headlines and statistics and this demeaning behavior reflects on the perpetrator more than the target.

I’ve always wondered why this is even acceptable in any form? As you say the US is a democracy, the freedom to vote as they wish, so why then attack those who are simply exercising this right?

Ultimately, it’s not going to do anything more than polarize people even further away from our point of view as they just simply wont listen at all!

I have seen some unbelievable posts on CAF, based on flat out lies, when you question where they are getting the information and try to point out that the Catholic teachings do not need political dirty tricks, I’ve been accused of being an abortionist, I’ve been accused of not being Catholic, ive been called names, i have been subject to nasty posts against me. This behavior only adds my voice to the “other side” when they criticize how we behave in our democratic pursuits. It’s disgusting behavior and not condoned in anyway by our faith.

If democracy is so valued why try to change a law when surely the focus should be on bringing people to the Catholic faith. Then maybe the laws we want to recognize our beliefs won’t be needed at all or we may have some chance of becoming the majority.

 

[Nate13]

Our religion points us towards what is right and moral. Everything God has said is immoral has a practical application that shows why it is wrong in society. Thus I know that anything that God has told us is immoral is also bad for society. Whether that is homosexual marriage, contraception, or abortion I know that it will have a negative impact on society. If I move to make something illegal or to make sure its not promoted as something good, I’m not doing it just because God said so, I’m doing it because it is bad for society.

That said, we then have to debate what is the role of the government and how far it is allowed to go in the name of protecting society and promoting the common good. For one though we could never agree with a law or policy that promoted something we knew to be intrinsically evil. At minimum we should work to make it so that the government is never promoting something intrinsically evil and calling it good. Once again we do this not because of what our religion teaches, but because we know it to be harmful to society and do not wish it to be promoted as something good.

Depending on what a person believes the role of government should be in our lives, that will then advise them as to how much power the government should have to promote the general good of the population. Should the government be allowed to tell us what to eat, in the name of our health? Can the government require us to buy something in the name of the common good? How far reaching should the right to privacy extend? What kinds of relationships should the government promote? The answers to these kinds of questions are what inform a person how far they believe the government should be allowed to go in the name of protecting society.

When opponents of religion try to shut us up by criticizing us for allowing our religious beliefs to influence our political decisions we need to see the lie for what it is. They are basically saying our religion does not relate to reality. That is fine if that is the philosophy of life they wish to take, but we should deny every attempt by them to make that the only acceptable philosophy because if it was we should not be religious. We are not religious just because its fun and we like to follow rules, we are religious because we believe it reflects reality.

The question is not whether we should allow our religion to influence our decisions, but rather how much power the government should be given and what its role in our lives should be. This is the narrative and truth we have to continue to push.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

It seems that the basis for disagreement disappears from the argument and it becomes a free for all on the majority of the population any accusation and demeaning comment is suddenly acceptable. The issues are no longer being discussed but there are personal attacks, unjustified criticism against individuals publically, fabricated headlines and statistics and this demeaning behavior reflects on the perpetrator more than the target.

See, I think you’re framing this wrong, because I don’t think that the Catholics are way off base on the major controversial issues. What position do we hold that we are passionate about where we do not hold the same opinion as the majority (okay… except contraception )?

Abortion? All 50 states had banned abortion by 1965. It took a Supreme Court decision to evaporate the will of the majority. Roe v. Wade and the current state of the law are not a voice of the majority. (Nor should supreme court decisions be, for that matter). Only 26% of Americans polled by Gallup this summer believe that abortions should be permitted under any circumstance. 51% hold the moderate position that it could be permitted in some circumstances. This 51% breaks down like this: 13% say it should be legal under most circumstances, 38% say it should be permited in only a few circumstances. I don’t see some majority opinion that is completely inconsistent with Pro-Lifers. I would suggest that 39% of Americans polled disagree with the bulk of the pro-life movement. 61% want abortions banned in at least most if not all circumstances. That feels like most Americans are pro-lifey even if they don’t want the label. (While only 47% consider themselves “Pro-Life” . . . 61% wanting abortions to be banned in most circumstances sounds pretty pro-life-ish.)

gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Same-sex Marriage? There’s certainly no clear majority. Reuters reported the first majority for same-sex marraige at 53% approve this year. The first year it’s ever polled higher than anti-same-sex marriage.

So from my perspective, it’s not the right way to frame the debate. You can’t say, “hey religious: the majority of people don’t agree with you, so wilt away until you can quietly convert them to Catholicism.” The truth is more like… around half or the majority of citizens agree with you. How do you best go about getting heard?

 

[usnlt76]

I don’t disagree with what you say.

What i find most interesting is the basis that this “public discussion” may take.

If a faith’s religious belief has been proven not to be reflected by the majority of the population the conversation leaves the realm of discussion and becomes unbelievably abusive and counter productive.

TBH it comes across as fanatical militancy (and on some issue they are arguing what i believe an even i question the tactics and “headlines”!).

It seems that the basis for disagreement disappears from the argument and it becomes a free for all on the majority of the population any accusation and demeaning comment is suddenly acceptable. The issues are no longer being discussed but there are personal attacks, unjustified criticism against individuals publically, fabricated headlines and statistics and this demeaning behavior reflects on the perpetrator more than the target.

I’ve always wondered why this is even acceptable in any form? As you say the US is a democracy, the freedom to vote as they wish, so why then attack those who are simply exercising this right?

Ultimately, it’s not going to do anything more than polarize people even further away from our point of view as they just simply wont listen at all!

I have seen some unbelievable posts on CAF, based on flat out lies, when you question where they are getting the information and try to point out that the Catholic teachings do not need political dirty tricks, I’ve been accused of being an abortionist, I’ve been accused of not being Catholic, ive been called names, i have been subject to nasty posts against me. This behavior only adds my voice to the “other side” when they criticize how we behave in our democratic pursuits. It’s disgusting behavior and not condoned in anyway by our faith.

If democracy is so valued why try to change a law when surely the focus should be on bringing people to the Catholic faith. Then maybe the laws we want to recognize our beliefs won’t be needed at all or we may have some chance of becoming the majority.

It comes back to the nature of Truth and its existence. Us in a democratic society start to be lulled into believing that truth is defined by the majority view in a democracy. Truth is Christ and the Church that He founded. Very often, majority opinion are just fads that come and go with the wind. Christ’s truth is absolute and that is what we should hold on to.

 

[essie7777]

See, I think you’re framing this wrong, because I don’t think that the Catholics are way off base on the major controversial issues. What position do we hold that we are passionate about where we do not hold the same opinion as the majority (okay… except contraception )?

Divorce --the number of states now with no fault divorce legislation is growing and this is definitely against what we believe as Catholics.

Homosexual relationships – 63% say these relationships should be legally recognized. 53% say its an acceptable lifestyle. Both these majorities have been consistent since 1999 (although both dipped in 2003/2004 before rebounding back.

gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

Same-sex Marriage? There’s certainly no clear majority. Reuters reported the first majority for same-sex marraige at 53% approve this year. The first year it’s ever polled higher than anti-same-sex marriage.

Sure i agree on this, but its a dangerous swing of nearly 9%, suggesting traction on the issue … i suppose on this its watch this space.

Abortion? sniped for space
gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Your use of statistics is i feel a litle misleading here as Catholics we do not believe in abortion for any reason, so suggesting a moderate view of “acceptable in some cases” support the Catholic position is not true.

Looking at it like this since 1975 there has never been more than 23% support for the abortion to be illegal in the US. So it is not quite how you have represented, as over 75% of the population advocate abortion in some form or another.

So from my perspective, it’s not the right way to frame the debate. You can’t say, “hey religious: the majority of people don’t agree with you, so wilt away until you can quietly convert them to Catholicism.” The truth is more like… around half or the majority of citizens agree with you. How do you best go about getting heard?

Isn’t the answer the same, if there isn’t enough people participating in the democratic process that follow the Catholic faith (or enough people that are Catholic) then laws aren’t going to reflect the Catholic opinion. Isn’t it logical to focus on the people rather than the politics, as people drive political change not groups which don’t have the support at the polls?