As I understand it, and I hope I am always searching for the truth so my understanding can change as I reflect more, read more, experience more and pray more, one of the functions of the church is to help those who gather as disciples to form their consciences. Throughout history members of churches wanted a short-cut (and lets face it, the vast majority of the clergy were willing to supply the answer) to forming their consciences--"is it a sin?" is still frequently heard in all the religious ed classes that Patty and I have led. This is, of course, very convenient and simple, especially for those who do not have the time or the inclination to discern how any particular action is the best possible expression of God's love. However,there has been 2,000 years of Hebrew moral teaching and since then 2,000 years of Christian theology and moral struggle which has grappled with many issues which continually recur--so that in many cases there can be simple answers to simple frequently-recurring moral situations. The Catholic Church, of course, collects much of that wisdom in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to which its members can refer for enlightenment on certain moral issues in the effort to form their own consciences.

Now, we come to a situation when cetain actions are being considered by the legislatures, actions which have a moral dimension. The churches have a deposit of moral learning. They have an obligation to their members to teach them and guide them in the moral life. How can they fulfill that obligation--which they owe to God, in the fulfillment of their mission on earth when they accepted the authority as clergy and pastors, to not bring to the fore the moral issues presented by the proposed political actions which the people are to consider when voting, joining political parties, contributing to parties or candidates or discussing the issues which the candidates choose to act upon? Silence in such a situation, it seems to me, would be an abdication of duty, even though silence would probably bring in more members, is easier and is more respectable and popular. As I see it, the churches must bring this moral dimension to the table or they fail to fulfill one of their functions.

Now, what are we, the members in the pews, to do with that instruction? We can reject it, consider it, or accept it, as we see fit, using whatever standards we usually employ in making our decisions. In many cases, if voting is the question, we will be presented with imperfect candidates, who espouse some of the positions that we believe are best for the country within the moral universe that we believe should be advanced because, in the long run, the society that lives within those moral strictures is a better palce for all, but does not advance other positions that we hold dear. We, as individuals must prioritize those political decisions which we hold most dear and let go to another day those issues which we will have to let other legislators carry forward in the future. And then, we must determine which political party is more likely to advance those issues in the manner which we think is most moral. So it becomes a process, constantly having to be revised and reflected upon. But surely the church has a right to bring forward its (hopefully) well-considered view on the moral dimensions of those issues.

Are sermons on these issues ""instructions" to the faithful on how they are to vote? I do not think so; obviously many faithful do consider them to be so, and many clergy are perfectly willing to have them be considered as such. Witnsess the power that the black churches have in this regard; witness the power of Pat Robertson, et al. But the First Amendment grants religions this freedom, to express thier views, to urge their position. Simply because some churches "tell" their congregations that they Must vote in a particular way does not constitute any reason to abrogate the First Amendment. Organizations have placed pressure on their members throughout history to vote for particular candidates and parties--unions, chambers of commerce, trade associations, the NRA, NOW and on and on. Why should the churches be any different? To say the churches have no place in the political process seems an egregious misunderstanding of the First Amednment and the supposed doctrine of the separation of Church and State. The First Amendmentforbids the government from requiring the citizens of the country to be members of any particular religion or even to practice religion; it does not state that relgious groups cannot be politically active.

An extremely helpful book in this regard is "The Naked Public Square" by Richard John Neuhaus, now 20 years old, but still very insightful on the subject of what ensues when religion is relegated to the sidelines, is compartmentalized and marginalized so that a significnat moral dimension is silenced in the political debates in this country.

Morality today in Europe is the morality of the herd animal—thus only, as we understand the matter, one kind of human morality, alongside which, before which, and after which there are many other possible moralities, above all higher ones, or there should be. Against such a "possibility," in opposition to such a "should be," however, this morality turns itself with all its forces: it says stubbornly and relentlessly, "I am morality itself, and nothing outside me is moral"—in fact, with the help of a religion which was willed by and which catered to the most sublime desires of the herd animal, it has reached the point where we find even in the political and social arrangements an always visible expression of this morality: the democratic movement has come into the inheritance of the Christian movement.

The crowd is untruth. There is therefore no one who has more contempt for what it is to be a human being than those who make it their profession to lead the crowd. Let someone, some individual human being, certainly, approach such a person, what does he care about him; that is much too small a thing; he proudly sends him away; there must be at least a hundred. And if there are thousands, then he bends before the crowd, he bows and scrapes; what untruth! No, when there is an individual human being, then one should express the truth by respecting what it is to be a human being; and if perhaps, as one cruelly says, it was a poor, needy human being, then especially should one invite him into the best room, and if one has several voices, he should use the kindest and friendliest; that is the truth. When on the other hand it was an assembly of thousands or more, and "the truth" became the object of balloting, then especially one should godfearingly - if one prefers not to repeat in silence the Our Father: deliver us from evil - one should godfearingly express, that a crowd, as the court of last resort, ethically and religiously, is the untruth, whereas it is eternally true, that everyone can be the one. This is the truth. * * * * * * * * * * * * But he who acknowledges this view, which is seldom presented (for it often happens, that a man believes that the crowd is in untruth, but when it, the crowd, merely accepts his opinion en masse, then everything is all right), he admits to himself that he is the weak and powerless one; how would a single individual be able to stand against the many, who have the power! And he could not then want to get the crowd on his side to carry through the view that the crowd, ethico-religiously, as the court of last resort, is untruth; that would be to mock himself. But although this view was from the first an admission of weakness and powerlessness, and since it seems therefore so uninviting, and is therefore heard so seldom: yet it has the good feature, that it is fair, that it offends no one, not a single one, that it does not distinguish between persons, not a single one. A crowd is indeed made up of single individuals; it must therefore be in everyone's power to become what he is, a single individual; no one is prevented from being a single individual, no one, unless he prevents himself by becoming many. To become a crowd, to gather a crowd around oneself, is on the contrary to distinguish life from life; even the most well-meaning one who talks about that, can easily offend a single individual. But it is the crowd which has power, influence, reputation, and domination - this is the distinction of life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single individual as the weak and powerless one, in a temporal-worldly way overlooks the eternal truth: the single individual.

I have to sit back and learn on this one.