One of the common refrains from the left and from those not religious is the separation of church and state. The general idea is that politics gets perverted by religion. Centuries of history teach us this and in the grand tradition of our own country, the first immigrants were those escaping religious persecution.

It has been 50 years since Roe v. Wade and also nearly that amount of time since the Christian Coalition and Religious right got its start. Even without going into the origins of the movement and the potentially cynical motives behind it, we can look at what this movement has wrought.

So, I’m reversing it. We shouldn’t be worried about religion perverting our politics but about our politics perverting our religion. Let’s ignore the cynical adoption of abortion as the most important issue of the day. Let’s take most people at their word and assume they are deeply concerned about the issue and want to see it become truly rare.

History has clearly shown that deeply religious people can accomplish great things independent of the government. The Catholics have the Gabriel Project. Unfortunately, it is not as common as it used to be, but it essentially took scared mothers to be and offered counseling, financial assistance, and prayerful options that did not include abortion. Instead of making it illegal, condemning these young women, or preaching against it in the pulpit, they simply eliminated the need by helping them.

Our faith or lack of faith has a direct impact on our beliefs about how government should resolve or not resolve our problems. Jesus even said the poor would always be with us. The only possible way to remain sane is to separate those religious beliefs from our political ones. How can we best assist the poor? What standard of living should every human be guaranteed? How can we possibly mandate and make sure everyone is getting this standard of living?

These are all valuable and important political questions that should be independent of how we individually approach the problem. It is possible to be personally generous and politically selfish. It is possible to be personally pro life and politically pro choice. So, these opinions cannot be the full content of our character. We cannot allow it to define us. We must get back to a world where what we do and what we say matters much more than who we vote for in November.

It shouldn’t be boiled down to a singular issue. In the 1990s, the battle cry of the Republican party was that character matters. No matter what you think of Joe Biden politically, cognitively, or personally, there can be no doubt that he wins a character competition with Donald Trump. Even if Joe Biden isn’t a good man he still wins easily. It’s hard to imagine too many people on this planet that Trump would win a character battle with.

When you allow your fervor over one issue to blind you to the glaring gap in character you have allowed your politics to overwhelm your religion. When you allow one issue to overshadow all of the other ones your faith holds dear you have allowed politics to overwhelm your religion. When you allow your political beliefs to cause you to hate others that have opposing political beliefs then you have allowed politics to overwhelm your religion.

I will not presume to speak for God, but I am reasonably certain he will not ask me who I voted for. A wrong vote is not going to keep me out of heaven or anyone else for that matter. The bigger test is how I treated those around me. If our politics causes us to treat others worse it is time to separate ourselves from politics. So, others might say separate church and state. I say separate state and church.

I did not send this direct response to my deacon, but it fits pretty well with how I am feeling in the moment.

I firmly believe anyone that is ordained in any Catholic or mainstream Christian sect has earned authority. You went through an ordination process. In the case of the Catholic church, you were discerned and went through a discernment process for seven years or more. That’s earned authority. All that being said, I have some earned authority as a teacher and a volunteer catechist. My words and deeds have power when I am acting in those capacities.

It is incumbent upon me to exercise that authority with discretion and grace. Certainly, priests, deacons, and ministers are permitted to have their own viewpoints of how the words in our sacred scripture should be lived out in the modern world. Each church teaches its own way and each individual within that framework interprets those words for themselves. While I am acting in a position of authority it is not my place to insert my own interpretations into my teaching. Those in more direct ministry should do the same.

This brings us to the political side of the conversation. Most texts I know define economics as how we distribute scarce resources. There are so many people. There are fewer homes. So, how do we determine who gets the home and who doesn’t? A market economy is just one answer to that fundamental question. Depending on your point of view it might be the best answer.

We can extend this out to nearly every good you can think of. You can extend it out to services as well. If we are looking at the sanctity of life then one needs to determine what that all entails. Are we narrowly defining it as simply allowing someone to be born and to keep breathing? Do we attach any qualities to that? If one were to talk about dignity as it pertains to life then wouldn’t the inclusion of these basic needs be included in our discussion about life itself?

Therefore, any discussion of life must move beyond birth and move towards these more complex questions. What are the basics everyone must have in order to maintain their dignity? Once we agree to these principles then what is the most efficient and effective way to make sure everyone has access to these things? Does that mean everyone has access to three meals a day? Does it mean everyone has a warm bed and a roof over their head at night? Does it mean that everyone is clothed or has access to affordable health care?

I say all of this as a way to illustrate that just the issue of life itself is not easy and not settled. Even if we were to agree as to what dignity and sanctity looked like we would still not agree on the best way to achieve those ends. Therefore, any opinion on the matter cannot be labeled as sin. As long as people are entering into a conversation or dialogue recognizing the issues and making a good faith effort to solve them then they are not committing sin. In fact, the very notion of assuming we have all the answers is committing the sin of hubris.

It is especially sinful if I use my position as an authority figure to shove my views on these debatable issues to the people under my authority. That is an abuse of my authority. Now, certainly private citizens should debate these issues and those in government should as well. It is more that fair to ask us to do more or do our fair share to bridge these gaps in dignity.

Our faith or beliefs on ethics and morals should absolutely play a role in how we answer those questions, but at the heart of it all we must understand that a differing opinion is just that. It is not a sign of moral superiority. Earned or given authority in one domain does not make us an authority in another. It is wrong to use that authority as a way to leverage behavior in another.

Author’s Note: I know many readers are not religious, but this story has its roots in religion since the story itself involves the practice of it. The statements made are statements of my own faith and are not meant as anything beyond that. If anyone is offended by the profession of faith I humbly apologize.

John Pavlovitz was introduced to me over a year ago by a friend and I’m glad he did. His columns are very similar to these to the point where it could seem that one inspires the other. He said what I was about to say yesterday. He put it in such a way that I couldn’t and yet a part of me was upset that I was being upstaged.

Yet, it is another concept I took from him that I borrow today. God’s nature is infinite and mysterious, so having a father, son, and spirit makes perfect sense. At different points in our lives we relate to one more than the others and that reliance can change depending on what we need in that moment.

Numerous folks are responding to the story of Nancy Pelosi being denied communion. Ultimately, that’s what we are talking about here and what John was talking about above. The communion is a sacred mystery and at the very center of our faith. We believe deeply that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. So, in denying communion, the archbishop isn’t merely denying her rights to attend a ceremony. He is denying her access to Jesus himself.

As John eloquently points out in his post, Jesus would have never done that to anyone no matter who they were or what they had done. He never would have denied himself to a sinner. That not only flies in the face of the central event of our faith (death and resurrection) but also every story we encounter in the gospels. “Whatever you do to these least of these you do unto me.”

Of course, the church’s stance on these things has always troubled me. I’ve watched my mother sit in the pews for over 40 years of my life and over 50 years of hers while the rest of us partook of Jesus. She was not welcome. She had not fully converted to Catholicism. She had attended mass more regularly than most Catholics and yet she was not welcome. Of course, most people would say why not just convert, but is that really the point? Can we imagine this Jesus (or any other Jesus) saying you can’t have me unless you have this special document that says you can?

It is a terrible contrast of having a gift that was given freely and completely that is as infinite as it was selfless. Yet, you have someone that can arbitrarily and publicly deny that gift to one or multiple individuals based not on what they have done, but what they have said and believe. It is impossible to reconcile these two. Moreover, it is mind-boggling to take something that is symbol of sacrifice, selflessness, and purity and debase it like that. It makes Jesus small. It makes our faith small. It makes us all somehow smaller.

God did not become human, humble himself, and sacrifice himself to become weaponized like this. God did this so he can be given freely to all that would accept him and seek him. God did this as an example of what we were supposed to be in this world. God did this knowing full well that all of us need love and yet none of us truly deserve it. For one to deny that to someone else is a sin. It might be the greatest of sins. None of us has a right to do that because it was a gift given freely to all of us. We can deny it to ourselves. We can’t keep it from anyone else.

OK, this one is rich.  Trump’s latest excuse about not releasing his tax returns?  He’s being audited.  That’s right, that’s not new; his new reason is that he’s being audited because of his strong Christian faith and that the IRS is biased against Christians.  That’s right – he’s being audited because he’s Mr. Super Duper Christian now.

Jesus.  Literally.