Religion and tax aid.

The last time I was invited to one of those black-tie media correspondent dinners in Washington -- yes, I had to rent a tuxedo -- one of the other guests at my table was U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. We made primarily small talk because the senator is, shall we say, not in sync with Americans United's program.

Recently, though, Sen. Santorum got himself in some hot water over comments from what I'd call "the emperor has no clothes" category. After receiving an award as "Catholic American of the Year" from the conservative Catholic Campaign for America at its annual fund-raising banquet, Santorum leveled a blistering attack on Catholic Charities USA.

First, he blasted the nationwide charity for not promoting the Catholic faith and asserted it "shouldn't be called Catholic" because it does "nothing Catholic." Second, he complained that Catholic Charities was the most effective opponent of his plan to overhaul the welfare system, which included a provision making illegitimate children ineligible for assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.

Catholic Charities does receive nearly two-thirds of its funding from all levels of government and is therefore properly prohibited from engaging in religious proselytization. Sen. Santorum has added fuel to the criticism that the group might as well be called "Uncle Sam's Charities." Since he did vote for the welfare bill that Catholic Charities opposed, however, he clearly doesn't understand that he has now generated more confusion for faith-based social services.

One of the first things legislators and advocates should learn is that they can't have it both ways when it comes to government funding of faith groups. Both the Constitution and sound public policy require that government funds cannot be given to religious entities without some strings attached. At a time when the public is disgusted with lax campaign fund-raising laws and when "government waste" is decried by the left, right and center of the political spectrum, why shouldn't accountability be required of all public beneficiaries, including religious ones?

Some groups just can't seem to understand this. For example, the head of St. Thomas More Roman Catholic Church in Salisbury Township, Pa., said recently he most certainly would not guarantee that no prayers would be said in a proposed expansion of the parish's school facilities. Government and civil liberties groups had questioned the church-state implications of a tax-free bond issue the pastor had requested from the county to expand the church's elementary school.

The congregation wanted government help in expanding its ministry, but its leaders were positively indignant at the prospect that there might be conditions attached.

The idea that government aid to religious institutions eventually forces those institutions to water down their sectarian approach and accept regulations is fairly simple to understand. Yet some in public life seem to find this trade-off too mind-boggling to comprehend. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, while addressing students at Seton Hall University in New Jersey recently, noted that too many Catholic colleges are losing their "religious character."

Scalia observed, "I hear all the time that Catholic universities aren't really Catholic anymore." What would he expect, as religious institutions of higher education take more and more money in the form of student aid, grants, loans, building funds and other subsidies? When the faithful fail to come up voluntarily with the support necessary to maintain a uniquely religious character, why should non-believers be expected to pick up the slack?

It is, of course, the very uniqueness of the religious institution that sets it apart from institutions with other backgrounds or agendas. When that institution gets more and more financial support from all Americans through taxpayer funding, it is equally obvious that those taxpayers would expect it to become more diverse, more flexible and more inclusive.

All of this will become a broader issue as "charitable choice" provisions, already in the new welfare bill, begin to be implemented by states. This legislation allows for direct contracts between the states and specific faith-based institutions, including local churches. In the past, according to some "gospel mission" directors who recently visited Washington, they avoided seeking government funds because, as one executive told reporter Larry Witham of The Washington Times, "Once you start feeding at the trough, they build a pen around you." They hope that the new "choice" provisions will help them.

If the past is any guide, they won't. Instead, what's more likely to happen is what has always happened when government decides to "help" religion: The religious nature of these missions will be watered down as they become more and more dependent on government money. Some day their operators will wake up to the fact that the Faustian bargain they made to get a few of Caesar's coins required them to give up their souls.

All of this should spur advocates of church-state separation to redouble their efforts to speak out against short-sighted plans, currently all the rage among the Religious Right, to have churches and other faith groups administer social services using public funds. Many religious and political leaders simply won't see the threat until it's too late. Let's not give them an opportunity to get that far down the road.

Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.