Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-First Amendment to the Constitution
La Salle students have a unique opportunity to observe constitutional history being made as the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution is debated by the Nation’s Catholic Bishops and the Federal Government. At issue is the interpretation of the term “religious institution” as it applies to the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health & Human Services initially limited the meaning of the term to actual churches (as in Saint Rita Church or Pasadena Nazarene Church) thus excluding institutions sponsored by a religious denomination (as in La Salle High School or the University of Notre Dame). The overwhelming outcry, largely - though not exclusively - by Catholic Bishops led the Government to modify its definition to include sponsored institutions.
At issue was the federal mandate requiring employers to provide access to contraceptive and birth control services as part of their insurance policies. As most know this mandate - as initially articulated - would force Catholic institutions to violate Church teaching on the sanctity of life. The compromise language alleviated but did not eliminate all of the Church’s objections. Specifically, Church institutions would not be required to provide free access to contraceptive services, but their insurance companies would be.
While this debate may seem arcane and uninteresting to teenagers, the underlying issue - who defines what a religious institution under the Constitution - should be. In the study of US History it is significant that first among the Bill of Rights is listed the freedom of worship, speech, the press and assembly. These were the source of the most egregious violations visited upon the colonists by the British crown; so our Nation’s Founders resolved to create their absolute protection early in the unfolding of the new constitutional framework. And, as any but the most casual students of history will know, the interpretation of what it means to worship, speak and assemble has been a two hundred year effort. So, it is significant that HHS sought to narrowly define “religious institution” as a “church” and it is significant that the government was forced to broaden that definition to include church-sponsored institutions. But that isn’t the end of the debate. For almost a hundred years, the Supreme Court has been asked to resolve the thorny question as to what constitutes worship, speech, etc. And, it is entirely likely that it will be asked to do so with respect to the current debate as to what constitutes a “church.”Hidden in the debate is a question posed by the Government: To be considered a “church” must all of the people you serve be members? The initial ruling issued by HHS said “yes.” The Nation’s Bishops and others said “no.” At first glance, the Bishops’ position may seem contradictory. After all in each election cycle we hear of individual Bishops criticizing Catholic politicians for straying from Church teaching, endangering their membership. However that practice is a judgment call not an institutional priority. The Church - bishops, priests and the faithful - are expected to respond to the Great Commission at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (Therefore go and make disciples of all nations) which implies that, in order for the Church to implement Jesus’ instruction, it must reach out to everyone - not just baptized members.
And it is in our response to the Great Commission that we see the crux of the conflict between the Bishops and the Government: who gets to determine what constitutes a “church?” The most eloquent articulation of the Catholic position in this debate was made by Archbishop James Hickey when he justified services to non-Catholics in the Archdiocese of Washington:
"We serve the homeless not because they are Catholic, but because we are Catholic. If we don't care for the sick, educate the young, care for the homeless, then we cannot call ourselves the church of Jesus Christ."
This position is echoed at La Salle where we consciously reach out to non-Catholics in response to our Board of Trustees who expects that up to 30% of the students we serve must come from other - or no - faith traditions.
While the debate on what constitutes a “church” may seem arcane and uninteresting to our teenagers; its implications for constitutional history and our own Catholic identity ought to be.
