The invitation arrived unexpectedly – a call from the White House, requesting my participation on a newly formed Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. I confess, I had no idea who had proposed my name, but the opportunity felt significant. As a Catholic bishop, and with religious freedom a core concern of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, how could I refuse a direct invitation to contribute to the national conversation?
The commission’s work proved profoundly important. We unearthed troubling violations of religious liberty within healthcare, education, and even the military. We delved into the historical foundations of religious freedom, tracing its roots back to the Founding Fathers. A particularly urgent focus emerged: the rising tide of antisemitism threatening communities across the nation.
Our discussions consistently returned to the complex relationship between church and state. For decades, legal interpretations have been heavily influenced by Thomas Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall” separating the two. Yet, this “wall” is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, or the Constitution itself.
The First Amendment explicitly prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but it simultaneously guarantees the free exercise of religion. We heard compelling testimony about how Jefferson’s ambiguous phrase had been twisted to justify restrictions on religious expression – restrictions that went far beyond preventing government coercion.
One case stood out in its absurdity: a student forbidden from wearing a COVID mask emblazoned with “Jesus loves me.” We heard stories of students barred from performing Christian songs at school talent shows. These instances revealed a disturbing trend – a subtle but pervasive attempt to confine faith to the private sphere.
I frequently argued that the most significant threat to religious liberty isn’t overt persecution, but a burgeoning “culture of self-invention.” This ideology asserts that objective moral values are nonexistent, and that truth is entirely subjective. As this perspective gains influence, traditional religion is increasingly viewed as an obstacle to be removed from public life.
The testimonies we received consistently echoed this central theme. Those advocating for a secular worldview recognize traditional faith as their most formidable ideological opponent, and seek to marginalize it within institutions like schools and hospitals. The commission’s work illuminated this fundamental conflict.
I was consistently impressed by my fellow commissioners, particularly the chairman, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. He and the others demonstrated genuine interest in my perspective, allowing me to freely express Catholic teachings on religious liberty. There was never any attempt to silence or censor my views.
I was given complete autonomy to conduct interviews, engage in robust debate, and contribute to the commission’s final statement. No one demanded unwavering loyalty to any political agenda. I am proud of the document we are preparing to present to the president.
I understand that some criticism stemmed simply from the fact that the invitation came from the Trump administration. But I believe that objection was misguided. Had President Biden extended the same invitation, I would have accepted, despite my disagreements with many of his policies.
Others argued that a churchman should avoid close association with a government agency. My inspiration in this matter was Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, the former president of Notre Dame, who served on an astonishing sixteen presidential commissions under five different presidents. He didn’t agree with every policy, but understood the importance of having a faith-based voice in the halls of power.
A particularly perplexing criticism suggested my service made me part of the Trump administration. This misunderstands the fundamental difference between advising and implementing policy. Those within an administration – like a Secretary of State or a Vice President – are tasked with enacting a president’s agenda.
Our commission, however, operated on the other side of that equation. We weren’t there to implement policy, but to *shape* it. Our role was to offer recommendations – through legislation or executive order – that would strengthen religious liberty. Advice and implementation are distinctly different endeavors.
Ultimately, my time on the Religious Liberty Commission was a deeply rewarding experience. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served, and I believe the criticisms leveled against my participation were, in the end, unfounded – born of disagreement and, perhaps, a touch of envy.
