There isn't really any way that I can address the topic that I've got tonight and be kind of light about it. I thought about that but it just doesn't lend itself to a light treatment. So it's going to be a little heavy though. I must tell you I can't get to heavy so but it it's going to be it's going to be fairly heavy stuff. But I promise you is that I will try to cut off my portion. Early enough so that you we can have a fairly decent discussion. I think that that will be much I really much better than my using the full 45 minutes for the full hour. And also you will be missing some incredibly good material because I'll be cutting back, but I'm sure that you will. You'll tolerate that and so we'll get along fine. Let me just stayed a few propositions at the very outset to establish some context for for this talk. First of all, it is the business of the church to teach. And it's the business of the church to form the baptized in the Full Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Second Justice is an essential part of that gospel message. Third Bishops must exercise a teaching role. To fail to do so is to neglect a very important perhaps the primary role which we must play. third justice issues are by definition moral issues and they affect society in the secular and the religious order. Next value systems in our society are largely determined by law. And therefore the value systems in our society are largely determined in one way or another by the political process. an example of that slavery and that's a good topic for a good example to use because it's an historical one and not one with which we're face to present slavery is a moral issue. It was resolved regrettably as you know. Bye. a war it was resolved ultimately by a political solution. But it was a moral question on which church has remained embarrassingly silent. During virtually the full range of the phenomenon of slavery in our society. And I'm satisfied that had churches spoken as they should have. To that question is a moral issue. We would have resolved the issue of slavery earlier in our society and less painfully than we did. There is a remarkable little book published by or written by a professor of history at Carleton College. The title is churches and slavery 1805 to 1867. And it's the history of the Silence of churches on one of the most significant moral issues that we have faced in our American history. It's a good example of what I mean by saying the church's must be a part of addressing those questions which are moral in nature. next When you've talked about the role of the church, and when you talk about the church in the public order, which is what really we're talkin about tonight. You have to be clear constantly about the competence of the church. The church must always play and voice. It's appropriate role. Let me give you another example. 3 years ago in the city of Saint Paul We were confronted with a very difficult delicate sensitive moral question. the civil and social rights of gays that became an incredibly volatile kind of question. I tried to address that question from the standpoint of the morality of the civil and human rights of the gay community. I was accused of advocating gay lifestyle. Which was not my intent, which is what I said. But to remain silent when you talk about people's human rights. Is it seems to me and abandonment of the church's role? And I think it's that kind of example, which I would use is. Pepcid inflammatory situation or case in which the church must speak often at Great risk? Because two failed to speak would be to fail to have a portion of the argument or the discussion ever surfaced. So those are some of the kind of preliminary things that I like to say in order to put this in some context now, what do I want to do tonight? I'd like to position the church and its appropriate role in public discussion of justice issues. Secondary, I'd like to make a few current applications based on recent and current positions of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. And then third I'd like to leave enough time for discussion. I will tell you very honestly and I say this particularly because of fishes felt his presence. What I'm going to do tonight largely is review or synopsize an address, which I gave to the National Conference in Washington because I was addressing precisely the same question and be perfectly honest. That was one of the reasons it when I was given that topic it was easy for me to say yes because my homework at been done so I I say that to you in all honesty. And but I couldn't do it any better if I did it over so I decide if I I just go at it. first of all I just so this is this is out of the way. I agree fully with the principle of separation of church and state I buy the principal and the principal is as stated in our constitution is a perfectly valid principle and one which the Holy Roman Catholic Church ought to support in all times and all places, but I do not agree that absence of dialogue about in between religion and politics serves either the church or the state. And three complementary considerations support the proposition that in fact the church must be a part of that discussion which ultimately will establish the principles by which people live out their lives in this nation. The first case can be drawn from the content of existing public policy discussion in our land whether we like it or not a whole range of policy choices are permitted by moral and religious themes today. It is not possible to talk about decisions as to how this country will conduct its Affairs in El Salvador without raising moral issues of Human Rights is just not possible. It is not purely a political or social nor purely an economic kind of issue. It is a moral issue. And since it's a moral issue The Church Must address it and the church must be invited to address it for that is the church's particular confidence. It is not possible to talk about the direction that our society must take as IT addresses questions, which affect the poor. As if this were only an economic or social question, it is a moral question because personal rights are involved and it is a bar on personal rights if morality really revolves. The second case is based on the content of the religious Traditions as they are understood and express today. Our own faith community as an example, but not an isolated instance of how the social vision of Faith increasingly called the church to a public Theology and public witness and political questions. In the third case is drawn from existing social attitudes in our country. Recently the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance company sponsor to survey on American values in the 1980s and that report concludes our findings suggest that the increasing impact of religion on our social and political institutions. Maybe only the beginning of a trend that could change the face of America. Now that contention is based on data showing that people like you with strong religious convictions influence the political process out of proportion to their numerical strength. That fat can be evaluated in several ways. History with teachers vividly that the expression of religious convictions with the political process has not always been a blessing to our society. The key question is how religious belief is related to political practice. And that's the question which requires that a systematic discussion of religion and politics take place within our religious organizations. And in the public Arena where people of all faiths and no religious Faith are called as Citizens to set the direction of our society. It might be well at this point for me really to pause and the refer back to the topic. And that is Episcopal leadership as IT addresses social issues. It is important to say and wonder stand. That it is not the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. Who are to be or who are the principal spokesman addressing such issues as we're discussing in the public Arena? One of the principal responsibilities of our teaching is to form others to address those questions and to become a part very deeply involved in that political process in which our value system is ultimately determined. So the criticism which is sometimes made that Bishops speak too often. Is in part about criticism. I would Princeton's be much better pleased as I am pleased at this moment in the history of are addressing the hatch amendment. I am always better pleased to have laid people assume responsibilities of leadership in that cause then they have me assumed that position of leadership, but I do not want to be denied the opportunity or the right or the privilege to assume that responsibility. I do have a right. To speak to moral issues as a bishop and the conference has a right to speak tomorrow issues as Bishops and is a conference and a fail to do so would be to deny. It seems to me our role of leadership in the church, but are essential role is to assist in the formation of the baptized who will become excited about and who will speak to those issues and will be effective in the reform which is necessary so that our society lives according to the principles of the Gospel. There are two basic questions obviously which shape the role of the church in this kind of discussion the theological question and the Constitutional question. The theological question is the way the church has articulated the content of its Social Ministry. When for instance the United States Catholic conference addresses El Salvador or the impact of budget cuts on the poor. When Bishops and Catholics Methodist Presbyterians, whoever it may be when we speak on the arms race when Catholics individually or collectively oppose abortion in capital punishment in defending the sanctity of life. Then it must be made clear that these actions are rooted and directed by and in fulfillment of a theologically grounded conception of the church's Ministry. Unless we can justify our positions within the church's Ministry the role of the church. Then we ought to be very nervous about our positions. But so long as we can do so and that's always the first of the most radical question. We must ask ourselves. Is this rooted in the gospel is this rooted in the church's Mission then we ought to speak forcefully and forthrightly and courageously. that Ministry of hours In the socio-political order is shaped really by two themes. The first is the religious conviction about the Dignity of the human person. And the spectrum of obligations and rights to which human dignity is preserved and promoted in the political process. These Concepts have been key in the Catholic tradition from the first social encyclical Leo XIII on the condition of Labor to John Paul II on human work. In the intervening years of the twentieth century, each of the social encyclicals has defended the Dignity of the person in the face of diverse and changing threats to human dignity and human rights. natural fill this role in a political context requires that the church not only teach moral truths about the person it must also join the public debate where policies are shaped programs developed and decisions made which directly touch the rights of the person locally nationally and internationally. This is precisely with Pope John Paul II was talking about in speaking to American Catholics in that really excellent. How many how many did he gave it to Yankee Stadium? He said you was within the framework of your National institutions and in cooperation with all your compete rijec, you will want to seek out the structural reasons, which Foster or caused the different forms of poverty in the world and in your own country so that you can apply the proper remedies. When the church responds to this theological imperative then the Constitutional question arises. How should it fulfill its social role in the context of the American and political tradition specifically? Can the church play an active role without violating the separation of church and state? We must make the distinction. between church and state we may not accept or allow the separation of church and state to be used to separate the church from society. To accept this would be to reduce the church or any religious organization to a purely private roll. This in turn would prevent the church from fulfilling and essential dimension of its Ministry preaching the gospel truth about every dimension of existence personal and social public and private individual and institutional as they affect moral questions. At the Constitutional level there is no conflict between the theological Vision which calls the church to active engagement in the social Arena and the American political tradition which provides for religious organizations to participate in shaping society as voluntary associations imbued with the needed moral and religious fishing. The concept or the threat of religious divisiveness is not only ill-founded in relation to our constitutional tradition. It is noxious when it is used to inhibit this participation. Let me say just a few words from my standpoint. About perhaps the most visible the most talked-about example that we have today and this whole question of separation of church and state and that is the moral majority. In my judgment two points have to be made. first Some have argued that the Moral Majority is roll. Is an example of why religion and politics should be kept absolutely separate and religious organizations should be silent on political questions. I would reject that contention while defending the right and proper terms of the Moral Majority or any religious organization to address public issues of our day. The right of religious organizations a very and Views to speak must be defended by all who understand the meaning of religious liberty and the social role of religion, but religious organizations must be subjected to the same standards of rational rigorous presentation of their views as any other participant in the public debate. And moreover religious organizations, which address the moral dimensions of public issues are to be judged by the standards of competent moral analysis. Protectively relevant are the issues of how one defines a moral issue and the consistency with which moral principles are defended across a range of moral issues. If I would have an argument with the Moral Majority, it would be on that Criterion of consistency. It is very difficult for me. to argue strongly for human life and not embrace all of human life. It is very difficult for me. But this is a personal opinion doesn't have to be yours. Obviously, it is very difficult for me to be strongly pro-life. And yet to be soft a nuclear warfare. But that's my opinion. But it seems to me that you must hold. Your moral positions in your argument. to the standard of consistency and if you do then it seems to me that you have a perfect right to advance your argument just as vigorously as you possibly can. Now those same standards of discourse are the ones by which your positions and mine must be tested. Neither the rigor of reasonable reasonable argument nor the controversy with surround the role of religion and politics should make us timid about staging and defending public positions and key issues. I think that's the problem. That we frequently face. I would be the first to admit. That's certainly I and you and anyone else. Would understand anywhere near completely. The complexity of an issue which is on our front page is virtually every day the issue of El Salvador. What I do know is that there is a moral issue there. And I do know that I cannot be silent about the moral issue. Even while I'm not in full possession of the total data. What I don't have a right to do. Is to propose a political solution? But I can suggest that a political solution is the only solution because I believe it is. It is not my competence. to tell this government how it constructs the detail of a political solution. But it is my responsibility to keep raising the issue and to keep raising the moral issue because of the human rights issues which are involved. That's where this kind of thing gets very very difficult and I am aware of that. Let me know apply. What I've set up to this point to three issues which are very much apart of us today. The first is the issue of the nuclear arms race. It is the opinion of many of us that that is the most important moral issue which faces are Globe today. And I believe that the church in the United States has a special responsibility to address this question a responsibility underscored by Pope John Paul and his remarks at the White House in his visit in 1979. We as a conference have a dress that question frequently. And we is a conference will address it again. And thousands and millions of people. of many many kinds of denominational persuasion I seriously wrestling with that question in their own hearts and their own minds. And God knows that is a plus for society. That is not a simple question. I personally believe that the use of nuclear arms is a simple question. It seems to me that the moral imperative there is clearly negative. But it is not a simple question as to how a country. constructs establishes preserves a status of Defense when the enemy is so obvious And not at all subtle. And that's why I say I think it's perhaps the most dangerous and the most complex of the moral issues with which we are faced. It is an unhappy fact the Strategic Arms Control discussions are presently stalemated, even as the technological and strategic dynamics of the arms race precedes. And I suspected as the convergence of those two things, which I moved the number of American Bishops to address the arms race recently in terms that I find prophetic. And profound the important and get often troublesome. It is not possible to ignore the dimensions of nuclear warfare. And that's why is a moral issue. It must be addressed seriously by all of us. What do we know? about the nuclear arms race I feel at this point in my conscience. I feel that we need to say no. Clearly and decisively to the use of nuclear weapons. And this is surely the direction. It seems to me a Vatican II teachings on the arms race and its condemnation of attacks on civilian centers. And I would feel that the know we out here should shape our policy advice and our pastoral guidance of Catholics. Know when you reach the point of the intricacy of the application of the principle. if you are an Archbishop on toes and if you Advocate that withholding is he is doing personally or 50% of his taxes. That is a matter of a normous personal conscience. I could not say at this point in my deliberation my resting with that question. I could not pass really advise you to do that. But that does not mean that I am right. It may mean that I'm weak. That is a question. However, which I think is quite different from the question of the morality of the use of nuclear weapons. if I were Bishop mathiason who in a very difficult situation because he's in a part of Texas very dependent upon. the arms inferred to raise the moral question as to whether or not people have the right to work in the production of nuclear warfare. Look your weapon me. I have problems with it serious problems. But that does not mean that he should not say this. It does not mean that other should not argue with it. But once we move into that Arena. Then we better be prepared. To argue and to apply the kind of criteria, which I tried to establish for argumentation early in this paper. I am sure this. It is not useful to blur the line of moral argument about the use of nuclear weapons at a time when the secular debate is openly discussing the use of limited nuclear weapons and winnable nuclear Wars. the second example the abortion issue the horrors of nuclear war though. Hardly fantasies are possibilities at present. But the horror of legalized permissive abortion Is tragically real. And the destruction of unborn life now occurs in this nation at the Staggering rate of 1 1/2 million abortions, annually. No. We are faced at this moment. with a massive debate on this question more massive than any time since the Roe versus Wade decision. There is just an immense effort being made by the pro-abortion forces. 2 really cut off Any effective hope for passage of the hatch amendment at the local Inn at the state level? There is no way that the church can be silent as IT addresses that question no way. It is at the heart and center of the moral argument. And we must address it. my great hope is that in the course of discussion of argument on the hatch amendment? That we will reach in this country a new sensitivity to the sanctity of all human life. And I would hope sincerely that that argument might have a positive ripple effect as it would address other life issues. But I am unwilling to be silent or to apologize. For the massive efforts, which we are making currently in support of the hatch amendment. I was in a discussion with some people within the past couple of weeks and people through my a great deal of respect. and the point being made was we're so vigorous about that life issue. and less vigorous about other life issues No, I guess that depends upon to whom you're talking. I would deny that it would deny the premise. But secondly, I would not apologize. For the Vigor which we might employ. In addressing the abortion issue at this very critical juncture in our history. It must be addressed at this point. and we have a politically realizable kind of amendment and I make no apology for working and speaking to that issue and as forcefully as I possibly can it is a moral issue third the poor Among Us. papal statements on the arms race Have consistently condemned the arms race because of the misallocation of scarce resources that that entails. And these statements have typically referred to the global level of the issue. But at a time of scarce resources here they take on meaning and domestic debate on social policy. Now I got nose and no expert in economics. but this morning I spent a lot of time on the front pages and then the following pages of both the same Paul and Minneapolis papers. Add a review of the budget proposals which will be made tomorrow. And I speak to this not politically. I speak of this. I think from the context of what I'm talking about here. And I go to those proposals. And I really understand I think I do at least I hope I do. I understand the kind of root the kind of reasoning. Which underpins the kind of budget message which the president will give I hope I may be sympathetic to that. But on the other hand, I keep translate all of that. Into what that does to the poor. I keep translating that into what it does to some I suspect in this very group. What is your security? I've been able to use the gifts that God has given you and superb schools such as these two. In a time when that apparently is not a very high priority. And I take a look at the other kinds of federal assistance programs, which really affect the poor. And I can buy easily that abuse has within our Assistance programs are to be eradicated. I have no problem with it. But when you think about the powerless when you think about those people who? I really can't control. Be their own Destinies and who for Generations have been dependent in one way or another upon the assistance of this Society. And to radically affect the way those people live. Is something which may be justifiable? But something which makes me very nervous and it is a moral issue. In the past few years we have heard from the church and Latin America the Pastoral principle of the option for the poor. And implementing that principle in our more complex economy faces, I grant different challenges, but the principal also has to have meaning for us. It means that while we are concerned about the larger questions of the economy. We will give specific weight to how any overall solution touches the poor. And we're call to this role of advocacy for the poor not only by our social teachings but also by our experience which has been very rich in such things as the campaign for human development Catholic Charities across the country this ministry within for the poor confirms the moral vision of our teaching in the Old Testament prophets were right the quality of our faith is tested by the character of justice among us. Well religion and politics always come back to the person to the way Society respect her fails to respect a person. The Church Must raise its voice clearly about Justice because choices now before us is a nation can a road the conditions which supports human dignity today those of us who visibly represent a religious Vision must be clear about our task. We must carry forward the debate about religion and politics because both have a central contribution to make the preserving all that is valuable in the life of each person in the lives of all the people who constitute the society. I know I thought in my way up here today. You people. Are going to be the movers and the Shakers leading us into the next century. And you're going to establish the value systems by which our society is going to live in that century. And I'm so grateful that you're here. That you are working with people who are interested in the formation of value systems. Who are interested in moral questions? And I'm so glad that. You have been willing and your parents have been willing to make the kinds of sacrifice necessary. To give you the benefit of a situation in which you can think of those moral questions in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But the privilege of your leading us into going to leave me but the privilege of your leading this Society into the you could recommend of your run in the next century. is that's a great privilege, but that's a great responsibility and I'm just delighted that you people are serious enough to come and be formed to question. To live with the kind of tension which anyone who was serious about personhood. It was serious about morality that kind of tension with which that person must live.