Chopko and Neuhaus on church autonomy, etc.

Here, at the First Things blog, is a post by Fr. Neuhaus that quotes and discusses a forthcoming article by "the usually understated and scrupulously cautious Mark Chopko, general counsel of the U.S. bishops conference":

Surveying legislative and regulative initiatives impinging upon various medical, social, and educational ministries, he says religious institutions are being “subjected to pressures to conform to the culture in ways that are contrary to their teachings. These pressures are overt and subtle, direct and indirect . . . Our institutions are under pressure to deliver services exactly as their secular counterparts do” and “the ability of religious institutions to ask that those who work for us act in harmony with the mission of the Church is under assault.”

In some places, says Chopko, the political process “is dominated by legislators and interest groups that believe Catholic ministries and practices are out of touch and should either be forced to reform through the process of law or withdraw from those ministries.” “At its core, this debate is not only about abortion or contraception or lifestyle or any particular issue; it is about an expansive government remaking religious agencies in its own image and likeness.” . . .

This is not just a Catholic concern. While the Catholic Church is the largest community and has the largest network of social and educational services, the assault is against the free exercise of religion. Religious communities that do not necessarily agree with Catholic moral teaching should be taking alarm. It is past time for them to be speaking out. They, too, will sooner rather than later be targeted by those who are driven by a prejudice that is accurately described as totalitarian. I use the term advisedly. It was Mussolini who first set forth the totalitarian maxim: Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Of course, those who are pressing religious institutions to conform to the culture (as they define the culture) and who are advancing the subordination of such institutions to state control do not think of themselves as fascists or totalitarians, and in other respects they are not. But in many circles there is a powerful mindset that views religious and other independent social services as an anomaly. In a modern, rational, well-ordered society, it is said, all such services would be coordinated under government control. In this view, there is little or no room for what Peter Berger and I described in To Empower People as the “mediating institutions” of society that stand between the isolated individual and the megastructures such as the state. The current attack is also an attack on pluralism, which includes institutional pluralism. . . .

What is disturbingly evident now is, as Mark Chopko says, the new aggressiveness in “expansive government remaking religious agencies in its own image and likeness.” The Catholic Church is the main target, in part because it is the biggest target. The efforts to increase the Church’s financial liability by, for instance, suspending statutes of limitations for sex abuse and other offenses, is also driven by legal looters who presume that the Catholic Church has the deepest pockets. That is the case if, as some courts have ruled, every Catholic institution over which a bishop has jurisdiction is deemed to be an asset that can be seized for damages. In this way, some dioceses have already been forced into bankruptcy. The patrimony built by the sacrificial offerings of generations of the faithful is now increasingly up for grabs.

There are many dimensions of this new aggression, with different players and different motives involved. What is at stake, and what is newly imperiled, is religious freedom and the diversity of institutional ways in which Americans have traditionally addressed human needs. This is not just a Catholic thing.