Washington D.C., Mar 29, 2017 / 06:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A Supreme Court case about pension plans of religious hospitals could decide something much bigger – whether religious groups are legally part of churches.
“There’s really a big problem if you decide ‘church’ is sort of narrowly ‘worship’,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
“That’s really something that a church should be deciding, whether they just worship or whether they go out and serve other people outside of the four walls of the sanctuary,” Rassbach told CNA.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, a consolidation of three cases involving the pension plans of religious hospitals like Advocate and St. Peter’s HealthCare System in New Jersey.
The employers are looking to move the plans, regulated like other plans of for-profit corporations, into a religious category exempt from some of those regulations.
The law in question, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, regulates pension plans of for-profit corporations, requiring the employers to hold an additional amount of funds in reserve. Setting up these reserves could be cost-prohibitive especially for community hospitals, some of whom “are not going to be able to do that,” Rassbach said.
“If Advocate and hundreds of other religious hospitals around the country were forced to follow for-profit rules, money currently used to serve the poor and inner city communities would be lost and many would be forced to shut down,” the Becket Fund argued.
Congress has recognized a religious exemption for pension plans of churches, and entities like St. Peter’s Hospital in New Jersey applied for this exemption after operating their pension plans according to the federal regulations for years. The plaintiffs bringing the suit, employees of the health care networks, claim their pension plan agreements are being unfairly altered.
The religious exemption applies to plans “established” and “maintained” by churches. In the case of St. Peter’s HealthCare, decided by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled that since the Catholic Church (through a diocese or parish) did not “establish” the pension plans, they were not eligible for the ERISA religious exemption, even if a “church agency” like a religious order set up the plan.
St. Peter’s is a non-profit health care system sponsored by the Diocese of Metuchen. The court conceded that it has Catholic ties, like daily Mass offered at the hospital, Catholic devotionals present there, and many board members who are appointed by the local bishop.
“But can a church agency, in addition to maintaining an exempt church plan, also establish such a plan? The District Court concluded that it cannot. We agree,” the appeals court decided.
It also conceded that for years, plans set up by “church agencies” were recognized by the courts as religiously exempt: “In the decades following the current church plan definition’s enactment in 1980, various courts have assumed that entities that are not themselves churches, but have sufficiently strong ties to churches, can establish exempt church plans.”
“However,” the court added, “a new wave of litigation, of which this case is a part, has sprung up in the past few years and has presented an argument not previously considered by courts – that the actual words of the church plan definition preclude this result.” New lawsuits are shedding light on the “plain text” of ERISA that churches and only churches can set up pension plans that meet the religious exemption, the court said.
There are around 100 similar lawsuits involving religious hospitals – many of which are Catholic, Rassbach noted. New litigation is “taking from the poor to give to the rich class-action lawyers,” he argued.
Not only did the courts recognize that these religious entities were eligible for the pension exemption, but the IRS did as well, he maintained.
This question was raised in Monday’s oral arguments, where Justice Stephen Breyer pressed James Feldman, representing the respondents suing the health care networks, on whether orders like the Little Sisters of the Poor should be recognized as part of churches.
Justice Breyer asked “if it’s a legitimate organization like, let’s say the Little Sisters of the Poor, really affiliated with the church,” if they would be recognized as part of a church.
The U.S. bishops’ conference and religious freedom legal groups like the Becket Fund and Alliance Defending Freedom have sided with the health care networks in the case, saying that it is a religious freedom issue.
In their amicus brief siding with the St. Peter’s HealthCare and Dignity Health, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued that while Catholic health care providers may not be officially part of a church or parish structure, their plans should meet the religious exemptions under ERISA.
“Indeed, charity has always been a core component of the Catholic Church’s activities, ‘as essential to her as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel’,” the USCCB said, quoting Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical “Deus Caritas Est.”
This charity is lived out “through myriad Catholic ministries” like health care providers, they added, which should be treated as part of the Church.
And these charities may or may not be directly affiliated with Catholic dioceses and parishes or with the Holy See, they continued, “yet, as a matter of Catholic theology, the various ministries that the Church recognizes as Catholic ministries are all part of the Church” even though “they may be (and often are) civilly, structurally, and financially independent entities.”
These employers must be given a religious exemption, the bishops’ conference added, saying that “long before” the ERISA regulations were enacted for pension plans, “Catholic charitable organizations provided their workers with generous benefits.”
“In recognition of that reality (which is not unique to the Catholic Church), and to avoid imposing potentially crushing new obligations on such organizations, Congress has long exempted the benefit plans of church-affiliated organizations from the sometimes burdensome requirements of ERISA,” they continued.
And the Court must recognize this, they concluded, or this could bring about more problems in determining which religious groups are treated as part of a church.
[…]
I hold Pope Francis partially to blame for this witch hunt of traditionalist Catholics. I am NOT saying that he was party to this political persecution of Catholics in the USA. But I AM stating categorically that his repeated and public singling out traditional Catholics for criticism and ridicule only serves to encourage persecution of Catholics by rogue elements in our Federal government. He should hang his head in shame.
Amen, Deacon.
My only possible disagreement is that it is “rogue elements.” I am beginning to believe it is standard operating procedures of the government these days.
I don’t think it’s any business of the FBI what form of the liturgy Catholics attend or whether they’re in full agreement with VII but it did appear from the documents that it was SSPX communities who were singled out, not so much those who attend the TLM outside the SSPX.
Again, the FBIs job is not to sort out Catholic disputes over liturgy or infiltrate churches. Ive had SSPX friends and have never heard anything extremist or violent from them. My hope has always been that the SSPX and Rome would reconcile.
they just shot a pastor out west, I wonder why they didn’t arrest him out in public
Do you really believe that they act upon what the Pope says?
If the Pope publicly denigrates traditional Catholics by calling them rigid and radical, don’t you think that is encouragement enough for the Catholic-haters in the Biden administration?
This is the same FBI that Catholic Joe uses against his political enemies, Christians and now Catholics.
The war on Christians and Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, began 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.
To identify as Catholic does not preclude being a domestic terrorist. Unfortunately! If you listen to many “Trad” podcasts you will soon realize that there ARE far right Catholics who could possibly be a threat to our present form of government. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn’t mean that if possibly suspect they shouldn’t be investigated. If you don’t do anything wrong you shouldn’t be worried.
I fear traditional Catholics far less than the rogue administration now running the Federal government and people who think it’s the purview of government to interfere in the religious practices of Catholics.
There is no such thing as “Far-right” Catholics, only CINO Catholics, who do not follow the doctrines of the Church. To them, it may seem like we are “far-right”, but that is because the CINOs are “far-wrong”!
Dee. How far-right are CINOs? I continue to remain cautious when I see a broad-brush indictment of any group. I try to refrain from usig “all” and “none”. God bless.
Do you have examples of traditional Catholics who pose a threat James? I don’t doubt it’s possible but I’m not aware of any.
Seriously? This is the very thing that a govt should NOT do. Investigate any random group hoping to find a crime or grounds for prosecution. Like checking all the figures in your tax return hoping to find a mistake and calling it criminal activity. In our country that is supposed to be illegal. Police are supposed to investigate AFTER a crime has been committed, or when/if they come into possession of evidence a crime is about to be committed. PLANTING undercover “moles” into catholic churches , or worse yet, trying to “turn” church employees and clergy is McCarthyism at its worst. Doubtless conservative people are often not only conservative in their religious practices but in their politics as well. But there is a gross difference between being conservative and being radical enemies of one’s govt. Funny that today, I read that the former DEM-led J6 Committee has destroyed a great deal of security video tapes and evidence which was supposed to be turned over to the GOP. Every time I see subversive actions trying to distort our country and our rule of law, the partisan and illegal actions are ALWAYS coming from the left. Since that crowd has no moral compass or patriotism or loyalty to the US, it’s no shock to observe this. Just disgusting. Catholic democrat voters, wake up before this gulag machine comes for you too.
“If you don’t do anything wrong, you shouldn’t be worried.” Seriously? Have you not been paying attention? The current administration and its DOJ have been going after a lot of people that have done nothing wrong. Parents, pro-life fathers, etc.
Perhaps you’re on this Catholic page to try to distract?
After Mark Houck I don’t see how you can do nonchalantly give this administration the benefit of the doubt in these regards.
I am truly concerned by the comments I have read here. They make me wonder if the conservative traditionalist schismatics are in league with radical national supremest groups.
The FBI, a bastion of Catholicism, is being attacked by radicals around the world. Now it is being attacked by our Mother Church?
The implication the President Biden, a life long faithful son of the church, hates the Church would be laughable in a sick comedy. It is tragic our Church has been infected by those who have the cognitive dissonance to believe such things.
Faithful son of the Church who supports abortion and performed a gay marriage. If that’s faithful, what does a faithless son of the Church look like?
More social credits for you Comrade Scott!
🙂
Joey has no issue with terminating an unborn life so he is NOT following the faith. Did he finally admit his son had a daughter?
He also became rich off foreign involvement, directly or indirectly – better open your eyes
I’ll assume this is satire.
Rubbish! Prove it! I assume you are a satirist. You can do better.
The troubling issue is the FBI is identifying Catholics as potential terrorist. Who would have thought this even a few years ago. This is a product of many rapid pro abortion American organizations that are out to destroy anyone and any organization, religious and others, that is pro life. The FBI is means they use to implement their anti life agenda.
If you don’t think that it is the puppet master Obama pulling all the strings on Joe the Stooge; think again. This administration has been Obama’s play toy since long before Trump “lost” re-election. This country made the mistake of placing in office a Muslim-leaning, homosexual communist as the first president to take over control of the country following 9/11. That mistake cost us dearly and continues to grind away at the very fabric and foundation of our country. If something doesn’t change and change dramatically and quickly, I think it prudent to discuss a “post-American” world and how to prepare oneself for a “post-American” America.
More and more information will emerge regarding how Obama has been behind all this corruption in government. Look to see how he militarized the FBI and the CIA to go after and destroy his political enemies. I have a standard that I apply when judging people’s trustworthiness: the broader the smile, the less you can trust the actor.
Dear Deacon. Without getting too political… I was no fan of PRESIDENT Obama, however you indicict him with “ALL corruption in government” without any details. WOW! You seem to have missed our recent history.
God bless.
Should we believe this? AG Garland said. “It does not do investigations based on religion. I saw the document you have. It’s appalling. It’s appalling. I’m in complete agreement with you.”
It has been revealed that there are rogue FBI members that have infiltrated the DOJ and other government agencies and the military. Because of it’s mission of protecting US citizens, I withold judgement until Jordan finishes his investigation the investigaters.
God save the union.
While Portland, Oregon has lost an estimated one billion dollars, owing to crime-related homelessness that exists on the sidewalks in front of businesses there, the F.B.I. in Portland is concerned about conservative Catholics? This belongs in the comics section of “The Oregonian.”
Sadly, Mark T you are not far from the mark.