The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a shockingly bad decision in March. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industrial Review Board. The court held that Catholic Charities was not a hoax. do not have It is primarily run for religious purposes. How on earth did we get here?
This incident speaks volumes about the current state of religion, law, and politics today. The decision highlights the partisan landscape of modern courts – the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to a 4-3 liberal majority after the ruling. last year’s election, and of course the 4-3 decision in this case was along ideological lines. Although judges often speak of a deep commitment to the nonpartisan rule of law, it is difficult to read a case like this and take seriously the idea that it is anything other than a proper interpretation of the law. What are the motives of the four liberal justices?
These acts of charity are known as philanthropy and are not voluntary. They are at the heart of Christianity.
Much can be said about the political hacking and failure to apply the law in this judgment. This includes a complete mishandling of the majority burden of proof in constitutional challenges to statutes. But the real problem is that courts are trying to define “religious purpose” so narrowly that it has lost much of its meaning.
The court in this case was interpreting a Wisconsin law that exempts religious organizations from paying unemployment taxes. As the court rightly noted, this requires an examination of “both the organization’s motives and activities.” The organization’s motives are clear. Catholic Charities exists to carry out charitable work “to put Catholic principles into practice.”
Anyone familiar with Catholic Charities will understand what these activities mean. The group works with the poor and disadvantaged, serving the elderly, the disabled, children with special needs, the poor, and those in need of disaster relief. In fact, these services include everything from job training and placement to meal service programs.
It does not take a theologian to understand the religious nature of these activities in Christian organizations.in Matthew 25, Jesus warns that those who claim to follow him will be judged by how they treat their neighbors. Those accepted into his kingdom will be greeted as follows:
Come, you who are blessed of my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, and I was sick. Because he cared about me and visited me even though I was in prison.
And the righteous will answer him and say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and giving you food, or thirsty and giving you drink?” When was the last time someone saw you as a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and clothed? When was the last time we saw you sick or in prison and went to see you? ”
And the king will answer them and say: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of the least of my brethren, you did for me.”
These acts of charity are known as philanthropy and are not voluntary. They are at the heart of Christianity. Christians are called to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and care for the sick.
The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Board argued that Catholic Charities does not operate primarily for religious purposes “because its activities are secular.” It is difficult to know whether the court and commission are speaking out of ignorance or anti-Christian malice.
If achieving the acts of charity that religion requires is not a “religious purpose” simply because secular people or groups might do the same, then religion is dangerously restricted and limited. It will end up being what it was.
Is it a religious activity to participate in sidewalk preaching and counseling when secular teachers and activists also speak on the same sidewalks? Is the consecration of the body and blood of Christ at Mass and the Holy Communion in Protestant churches, where uplifting books are read, clearly a religious purpose?
Where does the logic end? With enough creativity, almost any activity of a religious organization could be considered “not organized primarily for religious purposes.”
If a court determines that Catholic Charities, a division of the Catholic Church, does not operate primarily for religious purposes, even though its sole purpose is to perform physical works of mercy, we Extreme caution must be taken.
For decades, America’s legal and political culture has shifted its perception toward building a “wall of separation between church and state.” This statement is found nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but rather in the Constitution. letter from thomas jefferson. Since the 1940s, courts have made a concerted effort to reduce the practice of religion to nothing more than a matter of personal belief and worship. Pray in your room, maybe even in the church, but stay out of public squares. The regime doesn’t want religion to be anything more than that.
American public life needs to restore religion’s proper place. Living faith in the public square is central to the meaning of religious practice. When an organization seeks to live out the gospel by feeding the hungry and helping the sick, it is a religious purpose.
It doesn’t matter whether secular people or organizations do the same. Restricting religious practice to only those without a secular counterpart is the same as attempting to place religious practice within the narrow box of personal faith. That’s unacceptable.
We must fight to give religion its proper role in society. When religious people make employment decisions based on their faith, when they perform acts of charity to fulfill God’s commands, they are exercising their religion. If we have any hope of preserving religious freedom in American public life, we need to restore a bold and solid understanding of what religion is.
