This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Jan. 20 decision to force religiously-affiliated employers to pay for contraceptives — in violation of long-held religious beliefs — in health-care plans they offer their employees has sparked quite a few conversations regarding Catholic Church teaching on this subject.

Several days later, President Obama announced an accommodation for religious employers. He ordered the federal agency to adopt a new policy that would require insurance companies to provide the controversial services, not the employer, religious or otherwise. This supposed accommodation has ignited yet another round of conversations on this topic.

Not a few talk shows and newspaper articles offering opinions in the aftermath of these decisions have generated more heat than light. While the issue of contraception is an important one (The Business Insider article on this topic by Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry is worth reading), I worry that another important factor in the HHS decision might go unattended, namely, religious liberty.

More and more, I get the distinct impression that the voice of religion is not welcome in the public square. Even more troubling, it seems to me that the bedrock of religious freedom is being limited as our government wades into the dangerous waters of defining what is or is not a church.

The HHS definition of a church essentially creates a two-tiered structure — protecting the sanctuary while relegating works of charity to an inferior, unprotected status. For the Catholic Church, the works of charity we perform through our social service agencies, schools, and hospitals are deeply rooted in the beliefs we express in the sanctuary. To define us in any other way is to violate our right to practice what we preach.

Which is exactly the point — government is ill-equipped to define church because the meaning of church is based on sacred texts and teachings. In the New Testament, St. James himself weighs in on the divinely revealed definition of true religion: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction … ." (Jas. 1:27) No government can dictate otherwise.

Our country has long recognized religious freedom and rights of conscience. The free exercise of religion is explicitly protected in the First Amendment and "rights of conscience" were referenced by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

One of the earliest U.S. Supreme Court references to rights of conscience appeared in Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940. The court struck down a statute requiring individuals engaged in religious solicitation to register with the state, noting that "Freedom of conscience … cannot be restricted by law."

And yet, in 2012, there is a growing hostility toward religious belief and a dangerously cavalier attitude toward religious freedom. I understand not everyone will accept Catholic teaching on contraception or even agree on a single definition of contraception.

But we should be able to agree that religious freedom — the ability to worship God according to one's faith without overarching government intrusion — must be protected as a fundamental hallmark of our democracy.

John C. Wester is bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.