Well, what essential religious purpose does it serve for the Catholic Church to run institutions of higher education that do not offer purely religious training, or hospitals that treat people other than Catholics? To the extent that the churches operate within the private sector, engaging in businesses that people of any denomination, or of no religion at all, can operate, why should those enterprises be exempt from the laws that govern all businesses?
We all appreciate that the Catholic Church built universities and hospitals where there were none. But this is the 21st Century, and the laws that apply to all should apply to them. If you want to change those laws, fine, but the fact that Catholic values are out of the mainstream (i.e., contraceptives) does not give them the right to deprive ordinary human beings of their basic dignities. It's obvious that Catholic institutions value the services of people whose faith is not strict Catholic, why not value their right to make their own moral decisions within the law?
What about "The Good Samaritan"?
It would be an even better if "the church" took it upon itself to provide medical care for free (funded out of generous donations). Some churches do provide some aid and assistance to those unable to provide for themselves.
The difference between a church providing free medical care and the government is that one voluntarily receives the funds to provide aid while the other takes it under rule of law (and arbitrarily determines how much to take). God asks for 10% but imposes no controls to insure that the church receives it. The modern government wants far more than that. God also doesn't make a distinction between what percent the "rich" and the "middle class" should give to the church.
The Supreme Court only recently "changed the law" with regard to sodomy laws.
People are "poo pooing" the idea of a constitutional blockade on same sex marriages. If the Constitution is not ammended to specifically prohibit such an arrangement, we will soon see the Constitution ammended (at least through further Supreme Court activity) to include sexual fetish along with "race/creed/color".
If the "living interpretation" of the Constitution accommodates homosexuality then you can forget about ever "changing the laws".
The Church (Catholic and Prostestant) must take a stand on some positions and be unwavering to popular (self-gratifying) whims of the public. If the church refuses to stand on principle, does it stand for anything?
I'll include this discussion of Secular Humanism as one of the causes of the Reformation:
E. The Renaissance and Humanism partly introduced and greatly fostered these conditions. Love of luxury was soon associated with the revival of the art and literature of Graeco-Roman paganism. The Christian religious ideal was to a great extent lost sight of; higher intellectual culture, previously confined in great measure to the clergy, but now common among the laity, assumed a secular character, and in only too many cases fostered actively and practically a pagan spirit, pagan morality and views. A crude materialism obtained among the higher classes of society and in the educated world, characterized by a gross love of pleasure, a desire for gain, and a voluptuousness of life diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Only a faint interest in the supernatural life survived. The new art of printing made it possible to disseminate widely the works of pagan authors and of their humanistic imitators. Immoral poems and romances, biting satires on ecclesiastical persons and institutions, revolutionary works and songs, were circulated in all directions and wrought immense harm. As Humanism grew, it waged violent war against the Scholasticism of the time. The traditional theological method had greatly degenerated owing to the finical, hair-splitting manner of treating theological questions, and a solid and thorough treatment of theology had unhappily disappeared from many schools and writings. The Humanists cultivated new methods, and based theology on the Bible and the study of the Fathers, an essentially good movement which might have renewed the study of theology, if properly developed. But the violence of the Humanists, their exaggerated attacks on Scholasticism, and the frequent obscurity of their teaching aroused strong opposition from the representative Scholastics. The new movement, however, had won the sympathy of the lay world and of the section of the clergy devoted to Humanism. The danger was only too imminent that the reform would not be confined to theological methods but would reach the content of ecclesiastical dogma, and would find widespread support in humanistic circles.
Does talk of the "culture war" seem to resonate?
The Catholic Church is a charitable, non-profit organization. Furthermore, under Anglo-Saxon law the Church has always had a special status. Hence the first article of Magna carta protected the rights of the Church. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution follows in this tradition. You probably think of religion as a private matter, but if we follow your logic the churches would be forced on grounds of conscience to abandon charitable activities they have been involved in for almost two thousand years.