Much in the news these days are stories of Catholic politicians whose public positions diverge from the moral teachings of the faith they profess. Usually these stories are framed as instances of Church-State conflict: authoritarian bishops trying to impose sectarian dogmas on brave politicians striving to represent all their constituents.

This misrepresents the issue. In this country, Church and State are institutionally separate; but in this country and anywhere else in the world, faith and life are not.

The post-resurrection narratives of Jesus' appearances to those who knew him before he was crucified are proclaimed at Sunday Mass during Easter time. These appearances have the disciples moving from initial terror, through a re-introduction to Jesus and an acknowledgement of who he is, to a declaration of faith and the beginning of a new life for the disciples, life in Christ. Faith is a free assent of mind and will and heart to a God who loves us and who transforms every dimension of our lives (Romans 10:9). There is no area of a believer's life separate from his or her faith. A compartmentalized faith is not faith, certainly not Catholic faith, which begins with the proclamation that Jesus is risen from the dead and then works out the implications of that assertion in every area of life.

To work out those implications in every age, Jesus gave authority to the apostles to govern his Church and teach in his name. This authority from the risen Christ the apostles passed on to their successors who shepherd the Church from generation to generation. There is separation of Church and State at the heart of our faith --- the king is not a priest --- but there can be no separation of faith and life for either king or priest or anyone else who believes that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

The particular form of institutional separation of Church and State that we enjoy in the United States limits the State from imposing a particular Church upon anyone; but it also permits a religious body to have a public life. Freedom of religion cannot be reduced to freedom of self-expression for believers or freedom to worship quietly as long as faith exercises no influence on the public conversation which shapes society. Rather, the Church serves society and cooperates with the State and other public institutions by being herself: a witness to God's ways among his human creatures. The message of Christ and his promise of eternal life carries judgments about all dimensions of this life, including cultural and economic and political life.

Faith shapes a believer's political conscience, whether as voter or officeholder. This seems generally understood in the case of black churches, where politicians speak and invite believers to vote for them because the politicians will meet their concerns. It seems well enough understood in the case of synagogues, where no one is surprised that proponents of the PLO would not be given a platform.

But drawing conclusions about the public order from one's faith is viewed with suspicion in the case of evangelicals and with alarm in the case of Catholics. This is largely because the secular litmus test for judging if faith is interfering inappropriately in the public order for the past 30 years has been the issue of the legal protection of unborn human beings. This truly is a key issue, not only because abortion is intrinsically immoral in every instance, but also because the legal killing of the unborn undermines the respect for human life that has characterized the advance of civilization and separates us from barbarians.

Pope John Paul II has explained that officeholders in democracies can be expected to uphold the law, even if the law wrongly protects immorality. But he has also explained that Catholic officeholders must work to diminish the harm that unjust laws do and make every effort to change them. The criterion for changing a law is to ask whether or not it contributes to the common good. Because there are various understandings of the common good, political issues become moral issues, and moral issues will be contested. In a pluralistic society, perhaps no faith group can expect to be totally satisfied with the legal system; every faith group, however, can expect politicians who belong to it to work out their political positions in the light of their professed faith and to act accordingly. Not bishops, but the politicians' personal integrity makes this demand.

The United States has the most barbaric pro-abortion legal system in the world. Almost every other Western democracy places limits on abortion according to time into pregnancy and other considerations. Because the U.S. courts have made abortion a "right," placing limits on its exercise creates difficulties not found in other countries. In this situation, it is unacceptable for a Catholic believer who is a politician to embrace unreservedly the status quo on abortion. Such an embrace cannot be justified because of a few theologians' opinions or even should a majority of U.S. Catholics think differently; nor can it be justified in the name of personal conscience, which is to be shaped by the faith. It certainly cannot be justified by an appeal to the Second Vatican Council, which named abortion "a heinous crime."

Since support for abortion on the part of Catholic politicians is objectively a scandal, bishops have responded by teaching publicly and speaking privately to Catholic office holders. Because these measures have not been particularly successful, the question now is whether sanctions of some sort should be applied. There are complications. On the part of the Church, the 1983 Code of Canon Law makes it quite difficult to apply public sanctions on individuals; on the part of society, sanctions by bishops against politicians may be pastorally unwise and publicly harmful. In this culture, victims always have the moral upper hand. Blacks can be victims, Jews can be victims, American Indians can be victims, gays can be victims, women can be victims, even Muslims living here in the United States can be victims. By definition, however, Catholics cannot be victims, except for those Catholics who like to portray themselves as "oppressed" by the Church's teachings. They make the best victims of all.

Nonetheless, a response seems called for, and the bishops have a group of their number considering the range of responses possible. Because a line is being crossed in applying public sanctions, it would be pastorally wise for the bishops to act together. Some Catholics who would like to transform the Church into a vehicle for their particular preferences are impatient to have the bishops act exactly as they demand. No matter what the bishops do or don't do, however, each Catholic voter has to form his or her judgments, even in political issues, according to the faith. This is still a democratic state; voters get the government they elect, not one selected by bishops. In choosing whom to elect, voters should ask how a politician can compartmentalize faith and life and still be a person of integrity.

A secularist moral order enforced with the police power of the state will be intolerant, even if imposed in the name of individual rights. Catholics and other believers have a right to ask politicians to protect them and the Republic from this threat. There is no danger in the United States today of legally establishing any religion; there is very real danger that freedom of religion will be diminished by forbidding religious groups a voice to speak and a place to act publicly unless they pledge to remain inoffensive. Already in 1926, the famous British apologist G. K. Chesterton wrote that "the next great heresy (will be) an attack on morality and especially on sexual morality and (will be) coming from the living, exultant energy of the rich. The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow but in Manhattan." Of course, Chesterton wasn't running for political office in New York. Issues of basic importance to our faith make for difficult decisions in life. Fortunately for us and for the world, Christ has risen from the dead.

Cardinal Francis George is archbishop of Chicago. This column first appeared in the April 25-May 8 issue of the Catholic New World, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Chicago.