HOW HE SEES IT Understanding moral vs. civil law

Some high ranking officials at the Vatican and a few American Catholic bishops have said the church should withhold the Holy Eucharist from Sen. John Kerry and other legislators who support abortion rights legislation.
They must forget, or don't understand, that this country is based on the idea that religion and state are separate and distinct. Just as you can't use civil law to support a particular church, you can't use church law to support or oppose a public bill or law. That's what the First Amendment is all about. There is a big difference between moral law and civil law. Don't those officials understand that?
Further, just as the church cannot force a nonbeliever to accept the concept of the Holy Trinity, it cannot force a nonbeliever to accept the concept that life begins at conception. That is a matter of faith, and faith alone. That's why the concept is not enforced in our civil courts. Again, it's a matter of civil law as opposed to moral law.
Further, how could the church ever fairly and evenly enforce a rule withholding the Eucharist? We don't have enough priests to perform their regular priestly duties. Will we now require them to enforce this new rule? Who can receive Eucharist and who cannot? Who will keep track? The fact is, such a church rule would not be enforceable.
If the church now wants to withhold the Eucharist from such legislators, how can it avoid withholding Eucharist from other evil doers, such as:
UThose who are in favor of the death penalty, or a governor who may affirm a court decision to impose it.
UThose who voted for or support this "unjust" war in Iraq (the pope's definition).
UThose who practice birth control or family planning.
UThose who support stem cell research.
U Those who are divorced and remarried.
U Those news people or members of the media who speak in support of these issues.
Further, the pope has recently said that it is "morally obligatory" to continue feeding tubes for people even if they are in a persistent vegetative state. Does this mean Catholic hospitals and doctors are now required to ignore "living wills" that permit such removal of feeding tubes? Hundreds of thousands of these living wills have been written, and they are enforceable in all 50 states. Will Catholic doctors now be refused the Eucharist if they follow a patient's living will? Can a Catholic lawyer be disciplined for writing a living will for a client ... even a non-Catholic client?
Dangerous territory
I believe the church is mistakenly on a "slippery slope" when it comes to matters like these. It may soon be unable to retreat from these extreme positions. The church should first try to persuade its own members and get consensus on these issues (which it has not been able to do to date) before proselytizing its moral views on nonbelievers. For myself, I believe John F. Kennedy had it right, back in 1960, when he addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, in the middle of a hot presidential campaign that questioned whether a Catholic could serve our country as president without undue influence from his church. JFK stated:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote ...
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Now that is a standard we can live by.
XRichard P. McLaughlin is an attorney who practices in Youngstown and has been politically active, including making a run for the Democratic nomination for Congress in 1972.