"Encouragement is not establishment"

So suggests Rusty Reno at the First Things blog.  Commenting on some recent court decisions, Reno writes:

In the past any governmentally sponsored expression of religion was held as suspect. Now a way of reasoning is emerging that distinguishes legitimate state encouragement of religion from an illegitimate use of state power to compel consciences. . . .

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but in view of modern Catholic social teaching the Supreme Court’s decision strikes me as just right. As Vatican II recognized, religion is supremely fulfilling for the human person precisely because it engages us at the deepest level—and therefore must be approached with special care, not only to protect the integrity of religious institutions, but also to protect the integrity of our consciences. Our society should encourage religion—but we should do so with careful protections to ensure that our participation remains free and without coercion.

Here, Reno is echoing, I think, Dignitatis humanae (par. 6):

The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government.(5) Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will.

I wrote a short essay, which is consonant with Reno's piece, on religious freedom, the liberty of conscience, and "standing", which appeared in the Villanova Law Review a little while back.  It's here.