What about the separation of church and state?

Early in 2012 I joined clergy and committed laypersons who supported the abolition of the death penalty in Connecticut. As I left the Judiciary Committee’s hearing, an irate man asked whether I ever heard of the separation of church and state. We have our elected officials, he said, let them decide such things. Clergy have no right to meddle in these affairs.

Those who hold this position feel justified by the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew read in many Christian churches on this Sunday, Oct. 18. When confronted with a dilemma whether or not to pay the tribute to Caesar, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Cesar and to God what belongs to God.”

Rosazza

In Jesus’ times there was no separation of church and state as we know it today. Jesus is saying to his adversaries that they themselves possess coins with Caesar’s image and inscription and depend on the Romans for their roads and for keeping order. So give Caesar his due.

Interestingly the founders of our country created the First Amendment to the Constitution that, among other points, protects religion from state encroachment and with the hope that people from a religious perspective may freely enter debates on what many deem to be political questions.

In this regard, John Courtney Murray, S.J. (a Jesuit priest) published his landmark work, “We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition.” Murray made a distinction between church and state and church and society. The state consists roughly of elected and appointed officials and those they engage to help them carry out their duties on behalf of the citizenry. Churches and other religious bodies not only have the right but the duty to speak to the moral content of political issues. Moreover, the state must respect this right and do nothing to hinder religious perspectives focusing on issues affecting or promoting the social and common good. Simultaneously, religious bodies may not expect any favoritism in carrying out their duties to society at large.

With all this in mind, let’s return to the debate surrounding the abolition of the death penalty. The state must protect human life and punish those who take it. This is, however, a moral question, too, since God creates human life and we, along with others, spoke from this point of view during the debates on the subject. Ultimately we were gratified when Gov. Dannel Malloy, on April 25, 2012, signed the bill that would do away with 1948. Furthermore, the needs of capital punishment in our state. the most vulnerable must be

There is a caveat, however. At protected. This includes the times, some political authorities unborn. are in favor of clergy when they Thus it is immoral to incite criticize state or national policies people to riot, loot or kill. but are opposed when their Moreover, we must look critpositions do not coincide with ically, for instance, at our state their views. People speaking and national budgets to see from a religious perspective whether and to what extent must be faithful to their respecfunds are allocated to alleviate tive traditions no matter how poverty, homelessness and hunger.politiciansmaybeaffectedand even if they differ from other Hopefully, when people of our religious traditions. congregations become involved

At the same time, clergy and in matters of state, they will be laypersons operating from a encouraged to speak to the morreligious perspective also must al content of these matters. At be guided by principles enthe same time they must join shrined in our Constitution and others of goodwill to sting the Bill of Rights. For example, the collective conscience so that dignity of each and every hupublic policies will contribute to man being must be in the forehelping all members of our socifront of the debate along with ety to become more fully alive. It the solidarity of all our citizens. is in this that God is glorified. Then, from human dignity flow human rights, recognized by the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights of Dec. 10,