Someone quoted from Saint John Chrysostom, from his work: "De Sacerdotis," or, "Concerning the Priesthood." He wrote concerning the behavior of priests in the Church, and their relation to society. He cautioned that priests are not there to be rulers, to lord over the faithful.
Of course, he was writing in the 4th Century. There were no democracies then. Governments come and go, but the Church stands forever. The Church has to take a long-term view of society. Saint John Chrysostom, a Father of the Church, and a Patriarch of Constantinople, did not say that the laity, the faithful, should have no voice, though. We, the laity, have not only a right, but an obligation, to determine what sort of society we are to live in. We do this through the political process, through our votes, and through political discussions.
Have I ever said that people should give over their secular rule to Bishops or Cardinals? No. Religious leaders shouldn't be secular rulers of the country. The Church doesn't have a secular role. The Church and the secular are different. But that doesn't mean to say that the people themselves shouldn't enforce morality. People themselves have a right to say what kind of society they live in, what their children are taught, what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable.
When Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco wrote to the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the school board's plan to distribute condoms in the schools, the Archbishop offered the advice and wisdom of the Church, as a matter of discussion.
We have an obligation, (if we are lucky enough to be born in a moral society), to MAINTAIN that moral society for all future generations. To allow the degradation of morality, to accept a "let-live" attitude in morals, to turn away from evil behavior, would be cruel to not only the present generation, but also to future generations, as well.