Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III

Friday, February 1, 2008
An update on the battle between Archbishop Chaput and the Colorado legislature over an ostensibly anti-discrimination bill that in fact infringes on religious liberty. (Acton’s Joseph Kosten ably defined the argument in this week’s commentary; I initially raised it here.)

Zenit reports on the back and forth between Chaput and the Anti-Defamation League’s Bruce DeBoskey, with Catholic Charities president Christopher Rose wading into the fray. Here’s Rose on the idea that laws forbidding government to discriminate on religious grounds apply to non-governmental entities:
Jewish Family Services doesn’t become a division of the U.S. Department of Human Services because it counsels low-income persons while receiving Medicaid dollars. […] If they do, then every private citizen becomes a government actor upon reaching age 65 and receiving Social Security benefits. And every taxpayer becomes a federal agency when he or she receives a tax rebate this spring. Receiving partial -- and sometimes inadequate -- compensation from the state to perform a public service does not transform a private agency into the government.

OK, I’m biased, but it sure looks to me like the Catholic side is winning this debate pretty handily. (“Catholic side” is tongue-in-cheek. I agree strongly with the contention that this bill threatens freedom of religious expression across the board.)
Bookmark Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III  at del.icio.us Digg Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III Bloglines Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III Technorati Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III Bookmark Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III  at Furl.net Bookmark Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III  at reddit.com Bookmark Colorado Catholic Charities Controversy III  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics

Thursday, January 31, 2008
Two new Acton commentaries this week:

In “Religious Liberty and Anti-Discrimination Laws,” Joseph Kosten looks at recent controversies in Colorado and Missouri involving Roman Catholic institutions.
Without the liberty to decide who represents its views and who disperses its message to the public, a religious institution or organization lays bare its most vulnerable aspect and welcomes destruction from within. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious institutions may not function within a state, nor does it mean that they can not decide who they hire.

Michael Miller and Jay Richards examine the economic proposals of Gov. Mike Huckabee in “The Missing Link: Religion and Economic Freedom.”
Now of course there is no one “Christian” set of policies on the best way to help poor or stimulate an economy. Unlike life issues, these are prudential matters and good Christians can disagree. Yet there seems to be a growing tendency among Christians to allow the left to claim the moral high ground with their big government interventionist plans despite the fact that history has shown this to be not only ineffective but harmful.
Bookmark Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics  at del.icio.us Digg Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics Bloglines Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics Technorati Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics Bookmark Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics  at Furl.net Bookmark Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics  at reddit.com Bookmark Acton on Religious Liberty and Huckabee's Economics  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Catholic Charities v. The State

Thursday, January 24, 2008
Add Colorado to the list of state governments sharpening the points of the already thorny problem of church and state. Catholic News Agency reports on a kerfuffle between Archbishop Charles Chaput (on behalf of Catholic Charities of Colorado) and the state’s legislature over a pending bill that would restrict religious organizations’ ability to discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring. (The regulation applies, of course, to groups that take government funds.) In other words, a non-profit such as Catholic Charities would not be permitted to make adherence to the Catholic faith a qualification necessary to be a manager, even a director, in the organization. Obviously this is a cause for concern for an institution claiming to have a distinctly Catholic identity.

There are at least a couple interesting angles to this story. First, this is yet another example of the spread of a terrible misunderstanding of the meaning of church-state separation in the American context. Place blame where you like: I choose the 1947 Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, which burdened the legal system with the unfortunate phrase “high wall of separation.” Creative and mendacious judges notwithstanding, the First Amendment does not prohibit any and every relationship between churches and governments, especially state governments, and including funding that has as its purpose social programs rather than church functions (as in the case of Catholic Charities). We went through this whole thing when the current president proposed his faith-based initiative, but evidently not everybody attained clarity on the issue.

Second—also a throwback to the faith-based initiative debate—there is the related but distinct question of whether it is wise, helpful, and ultimately beneficial to all parties to have state funds funneled through religious organizations such as Catholic Charities. The question has been raised with specific reference to Catholic Charities USA by, among others, Acton’s Fr. Sirico, going back at least to the mid-1990s. More recently, the issue has been forced by, for example, California’s 2004 attack on Catholic Charities over the provision of birth control in employees’ health insurance, Massachusetts’ mandate on adoption by gay couples, and now this. To their credit, the pertinent Catholic authorities have usually refused to compromise in these cases.

To be clear, I think the Colorado legislature is mistaken and this and other similar assaults on the prerogatives of Catholic (or any other religious) institutions are unjust and unconstitutional. Yet it may be time once again to make the proposal, which would solve the problem and which will doubtless be categorically rejected by Catholic leaders and government officials alike: pull back the reach of the state’s provision of social assistance and let private donations fund Catholic Charities and all such charitable groups.
Bookmark Catholic Charities v. The State  at del.icio.us Digg Catholic Charities v. The State Bloglines Catholic Charities v. The State Technorati Catholic Charities v. The State Bookmark Catholic Charities v. The State  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Catholic Charities v. The State  at Furl.net Bookmark Catholic Charities v. The State  at reddit.com Bookmark Catholic Charities v. The State  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!