The late Jesuit theologian, John Courtney Murray, recently mentioned in Father Richard McBrien's April 23 Tidings column, made a distinction between moral law and civil law. Father Murray based his argument on the work of Thomas Aquinas. As explained by Father McBrien, Aquinas "had insisted that if civil laws laid too heavy a burden on the 'multitude of imperfect people,' it would be impossible for such laws to be obeyed and this, in turn, could lead eventually to a disregard for all laws."

If civil laws are too restrictive or are unenforceable, then the passing of such laws invites people to disobey them. I suppose that if at this point in the year 2004 a law was passed by one of the states banning smoking entirely, that law would be unenforceable, and would invite disrespect for law in general. It is probably reasonable for many people to hold that smoking is contrary to the moral law, since all smoking is in some way dangerous and anti-social. However, smoking would not yet be considered to be deviant behavior in our society. A complete ban on smoking would be unenforceable. Parents who smoke in their homes or in their cars are endangering their children, but we are not yet ready to arrest parents or take away their children because they smoke in their presence.

Laws against abortion are also unenforceable, because there would still be a large number of abortions if abortion were to be criminalized. Furthermore, abortions require proper medical attention. Our society does not want to take away the legal right to proper medical attention for women choosing to have abortions. Still, there are many people in America who consider abortions to be homicides. Can a politician or public servant declare that he or she is personally opposed to abortion, and yet say that they also think a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion? If so, a Catholic politician who is pro-choice can be a Catholic in good standing.

As a public servant, the Catholic in public office has a duty to represent many people who are not Catholics. He or she must respect the consciences of their constituency. To support abortion rights as a politician is not to say that abortion is acceptable before the moral law. It is only to say that, legally, abortion is not a right that we are willing to take away from our citizens. It is presently the duty of our Catholic politicians to explain this distinction to the public. His or her own integrity and their honesty before the public would demand it. Taking such a position would require knowing St. Aquinas' distinction between moral and civil law.

This problem as confronted by Catholics in America is much the same issue as confronted by Muslims in Iraq. If Iraqi Muslims accept religious freedom under a civil constitution, they will, in the minds of many if not most, be compromising the religious law of their own faith. They would be allowing all the corruptions they see in Western democracy to creep into their own society. A secular constitution would put all religions on an equal footing, and would compromise the law of God as Muslims understand it. They and we must face the same issue: the place of religious values in the public forum in a secular democracy.

Robert E. Doud is a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Pasadena City College, Pasadena, California. His articles have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Process Studies, Review for Religious, The Journal of Religion, The Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Thought, Philosophy Today, The Thomist, Religion & Literature, Horizons, Soundings, Philosophy & Religion, and Existentia.