Unpublished Op-Ed on Religious Institutions and Right of Conscience

Our Mirror of Justice (and my law school) colleague, Rob Vischer, posted several days ago (here) about a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial authored by state representative John Lesch (here) arguing that the Catholic Church should stop speaking about public policy matters and insisting that conscience was a matter only of individual rights and not belonging to institutions.

I had penned a responsive op-ed, which the Star-Tribune apparently has not seen fit to publish.  So, for what limited value it may have to this venue, I post it below.  Understand that it is in the style and substance of an op-ed.  Nonetheless, I hope it may be of some value for those of us discussing questions of the Church's role in society and the nature of religious liberty with general audiences, including family and friends.

-----------------

In Friday’s Star-Tribune, DFL State Representative John Lesch tells us that he was rather upset to hear from his priest at worship last Sunday that the Catholic bishops support the ballot initiative this fall to confirm marriage as between one man and one woman.

A few weeks earlier, he had been annoyed to learn that the Catholic Church was opposed to the (since revised) federal regulation requiring most religious organizations—including faith-based hospitals, charities, and colleges—to fund abortion pills, sterilization, and contraceptives for their employees.

No one questions Rep. Lesch’s freedom to reject Catholic moral teaching or to dispute the church’s vision of the public good.  But Rep. Lesch also wants to shut-down any religious dissent to his own preferred policies.

First, noting the power of the government to impose taxes, Rep. Lesch warns that the Catholic Church should learn to be quiet.

Sadly, this is not the first time that politicians have tried to silence the Catholic Church.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Catholic bishops in Missouri, Louisiana, and elsewhere spoke out against racial segregation, insisted on integration of parochial schools against political opposition, and even excommunicated racist politicians and citizen leaders.[See Note Below]  Invoking “Separation of Church and State,” many segregationist southern politicians demanded that the church stop interfering in public policy.

More recently, Catholic bishops have called on governors and legislators to abandon the death penalty and to provide more funding for poverty programs.  Once again, some politicians have protested the introduction of these religious voices into public debate.

Second, Rep. Lesch wants to use the power of government to force religious organizations to do as he wants.  He dismisses out of hand any right of conscience by a faith-based hospital, charity, or university.

“Individuals have consciences,” Rep. Lesch asserts, but “institutions do not.”

So then, could a Catholic hospital be forced by the government to perform abortions?  Rep. Lesch clearly thinks so.  Indeed, he argues that Catholic hospitals should be required by law to give everyone “access [to] legal health care.”  Since abortions remain legal, then in Rep. Lesch’s world, Catholic hospitals could be required to offer them.

Could a Mennonite college be forced to allow an ROTC program on campus, contrary to its pacifist values?  Because he would see a Mennonite college as merely an “institution” without rights, Rep. Lesch presumably would turn a deaf ear to its objection to a law requiring all colleges to offer military training.

Could a homeless shelter operated by Lutheran Social Services be required to check the immigration status of those it serves, under a state law that prohibits “harboring illegal aliens”?  Rep. Lesch’s narrow approach would withdraw any protection here too.

Could a Catholic law school be mandated by accreditation laws to instruct future prosecutors how to get death sentences against criminal defendants?  Rep. Lesch (wrongly) claims that the First Amendment only affords “individual freedom.”  So, again, his answer must be “yes.”

Now readers might question this “parade of horribles” as exaggerated and designed only to scare people.  But, in fact, religious-based hospitals already have encountered political campaigns to force them to open their operating rooms to abortions.  Religious-based charities, such as adoption agencies, have been forced to close because they wouldn’t follow conflicting government rules, such as offering children for adoption to gay couples.

And, although mostly on non-religious grounds, private universities and colleges have been forced to permit military recruiters on campus, even when they objected as a matter of conscience because the military then refused to permit gays to openly serve.

In a free society, people of faith must be permitted to join together and serve their neighbors, by providing health care, opening soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and offering education through religious schools and colleges.  And they should be allowed to perform those missions consistent with their most fundamental values.

When politicians try to force religious hospitals, charities, schools, and colleges to act contrary to conscience—or to be squeezed out of existence altogether—then religious liberty is in danger.  When a politician denies that religious groups have any freedoms, we all should be frightened.

[Note:  I modified this passage in response to comments and for the reasons explained further in the comments to this post.]