Eucharist and ‘separation of Church and State’

Since I’ve already taken on one hot-button topic today, might as well keep the ball rolling:

One of the main complaints brought up when a bishop or priest threatens to deny the Eucharist to a politician who supports legislation that is contrary to Church teaching is that it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. This is another one of those ridiculous assertions that has no basis in the truth.

For there to be a violation of the separation, one or the other must have some authority in the other. As an example, if the bishop could say that the politician couldn’t be elected because of his views, THAT would be a violation of the separation. Similarly, if the state could dictate who could have Eucharist in the Catholic Church, that too would be a violation of the separation. But that’s not what is happening in this case.

All the bishop is doing is saying “Look, when you step inside my building, you’re now on the Church’s turf. Here, you play by our rules.”

That’s no different than the government saying to the bishop as he enters the court-house for his speeding ticket saying “God has already forgiven me”, the court can say the same thing to him.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

One Response to “Eucharist and ‘separation of Church and State’”

  1. Paul Says:

    It’s hard for people to understand because they want the state to be able to tell the church what it can and cannot do. It’s hard for people to understand because they don’t want to be told what is right and wrong by the church, they want to be told by the state, because, if they don’t like what the state says they can unelect the state official. They can’t unelect God.