Like most Catholics throughout Western Pennsylvania I was delighted when I heard that Bishop David Zubik was appointed to head our diocese. Our hopes have not been disappointed. He is a good shepherd. So it is with reluctance that I publicly disagree with this good man.

However, I believe Bishop Zubik was wrong to join several other bishops in urging that President Barack Obama not be awarded an honorary degree by the University of Notre Dame when he gives the university's commencement address this weekend.

The issue is not abortion, which countless people of various faiths believe to be wrong -- a view which I share. The bishop's position is wrong for two other reasons.

The first is a failure to appreciate the role of civil law in our society. As both Augustine and Aquinas recognized centuries ago, not every moral wrong, no matter how serious, should be barred by civil law. Some conduct must be left to the conscience of the individual.

Fundamentally civil law is designed to keep order in society and to create an environment -- to paraphrase Jacques Maritain -- that is open to the transcendent. By keeping order and providing security, government gives all of us a chance to grow and to thrive.

The crucial role of civil law in maintaining a peaceful and productive society is imperiled by the adoption of laws which would be opposed by a large proportion of its members. When that happens, the law is widely disobeyed and the influence of civil law is diminished.

Prohibition, which was aimed at the destruction caused to individuals and families by the use of alcohol, not only did not work but also encouraged the development of criminal mobs whose influence lasted far beyond the repeal of Prohibition.

Another more recent example, when civil law was not invoked, makes the same point.

At Christmas time in 1972, President Richard Nixon ordered the bombing of Hanoi. Civilians were bombed and thousands were killed. His action violated the moral principle of just warfare as articulated by theologians and moral teachers over the centuries, and it also clearly violated international law. But he was not prosecuted. A prosecution would have torn our society apart even more than the tragic Vietnam War.

In a similar vein, supporting a law which permits an individual woman to decide whether to have an abortion is not support for abortion. It is instead a recognition that there is a deep division in our society on the issue and that a majority of citizens do not favor outlawing abortion. It, therefore, is one of those important moral issues which cannot be legislated and which must be left to individual consciences so as to maintain order in society.

The other problem with Bishop Zubik's position is its unintended consequences. Whenever the church enters the thorny thicket of statecraft or politics it runs the risk that admirable moral goals can be perverted in the process.

In the early Middle Ages, Pope Urban II and later councils of the church threatened excommunication to those who used a cross bow. While this may have started as a moral admonition against the use of what was then a weapon of mass destruction, it was widely ignored, often manipulated by kings and princes in times of war, and eventually morphed into a rule forbidding its use against only fellow Christians.

As Pope Benedict XVI recently reminded listeners in Jordan, care must be taken to avoid the manipulation of religion for political ends. The current alliance of many diocesan offices with conservative political operatives and pro-life fanatics represents precisely that.

In response to a well-organized e-mail, telephone and mail campaign conducted by such political players, church leaders have tacitly endorsed elected officials who strongly support the death penalty or preemptive wars like that in Iraq, both of which are against Catholic teaching. By supporting so-called pro-life candidates, our bishops also have ended up supporting economic and social policies which have greatly widened the gap between rich and poor, have promoted a culture of runaway greed and have pushed more and more women into poverty. How many frightened young women who wanted to have a baby have opted for an abortion out of sheer panic?

Heeding shrewd political operatives and zealots in the so-called pro-life movement has put many church leaders in the role of supporting candidates who are not truly pro-life and who care little for the social and economic welfare of their fellow citizens.

We are fortunate to live in a society where we can disagree with policies or statements of our civic and religious leaders. While I don't agree with every policy of Mr. Obama, I am pleased that he is our president and that my alma mater has chosen to honor him.

Similarly, while I disagree with Bishop Zubik on this issue, I recognize that his statement in the Pittsburgh Catholic was argued on principle and was devoid of the hateful rhetoric which has been directed at Notre Dame University and its president by the fanatics who have led the protests against Mr. Obama's appearance at the university's commencement.

I continue to be pleased that this good man leads our diocese.