The Attorney General of Texas 

November 8, 1977 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Joe Resweber 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Opinion No. H-1087 

Re: Construction and 

maintenance of a nondenominational chapel 

Dear Mr. Resweber: at a public hospital. 

You inquire whether a nondenominational chapel may be 

built with private funds at a hospital owned and operated 

by the Harris County Hospital District. If it may be built, 

you inquire whether the Hospital District may maintain it. 

The Harris County Hospital District was created to provide medical and hospital care for needy inhabitants of the 

county. Tex. Const. art. 9, § 4; V.T.C.S. art. 4494n: see 

Attorney General Opinion H-454 (1974). In Attorney General 

Opinion M-1255 (1972), this office considered whether the 

Harris County Hospital District could employ chaplains. 

Noting the contributions chaplains could make toward dealing 

with the psychological and social aspects of -illness, and 

the long history of chaplaincies in Texas state hospitals, 

the opinion concluded that the Hospital District had authority under its statute to employ them. In our opinion, the 

Board of Hospital Managers could determine that the construction and maintenance of a hospital chapel would benefit 

patients and could accept donations for constructions of the 

chapel as "not inconsistent with proper management and objects" of the district. See V.T.C.S. art. 4494n, 9 15. 

However, as a public bodymnanced by public funds, Arseneau 

v. Tarrant County Hospital Dist., 408 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. -- Fort Worth 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Attorney General 

Opinion H-454 (1974), its actions must not violate state and 

federal constitutional provisions on the separation of church 

and state. 

Article 1, section 6 of the Texas Constitution provides 

in part: 

All men have a natural and indefeasible 

right to worship Almighty God according to 

p. 4463 
Honorable Joe Resweber - Page 2 (H-1087) 

the dictates of their own consciences. NO 

man shall be compelled to attend, erect or 

support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. 

Article 1, section 7 provides as follows: 

No money shall be appropriated, or drawn 

from the Treasury for the benefit of any 

sect, or religious society, theological 

or religious seminary; nor shall property 

belonging to the State be appropriated for 

any such purpose. 

Church v. Bullock, 109 S.W. 115 (Tex. 19081, the only relevant 

case construing these provisions, does not indicate that construction and maintenance of the chapel would violate them. In 

fact, the court noted approvingly that religious services were 

at that time held in the chapel of the State University and in 

other public buildings. Several Attorney General Opinions on 

similar questions indicate that the construction of a nondenominational chapel for voluntary use in a public hospital would 

not violate the Texas Constitution. Attorney General Opinions 

WW-1409, WW-1269 (1962); V-940 (1949). In our opinion, the district may build a nondenominational hospital chapel with donated 

funds and may thereafter maintain the chapel without violating 

article 1, sections 6 and 7 of the Texas Constitution. The 

courts of other states, construing similar provisions of their 

own constitutions, have approved the donation of nondenominational chapels to public institutions. Reichwald v. Catholic 

Bishop of Chicago, 101 N.E. 266 (111. 1913) (chapel at County 

poor farm); Peopre ex rel. New York League for Separation of 

Church and State v. Lyons, 21 N.Y.S.Zd 250 (Sup. Ct. 1940) (prison 

chapel); State v. Williamson, 347 P.2d 204 (Okla. 1959) (chapel 

at state orphanage). 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution which 

applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment provides in part that 

Congress shall make no law respecting 

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . 

The United States Supreme Court has not dealt with a question 

like the one you present; however, opinions dealing with 

other issues have referred to circumstances under which the 

government could build and maintain a nondenominational chapel 

for voluntary use. In School District of Abington Township v. 

Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), the court determined that relip. 4464 
Honorable Joe Resweber - Page 3 (~-1087) 

gious exercises in a public school we;, unconstitutional, but 

at the same time, some of the opinions indicated that such 

practices as providing chaplains and churches for persons in 

the military and in prisons were constitutional. 374 U.S. at 

203, 213, 296-99, 306. Justice Brennan in a concurring opinion 

stated that such practices conceivably violated the establishment clause, but probably could not be struck down without 

serious interference with religious liberties protected by the 

first amendment. 374 U.S. at 296-97. In our opinion, the 

courts would hold that the hospital district may, consistently 

with the establishment clause, provide a chapel for voluntary 

use by its patients, who are cut off from other places of worship at a time when they may have particular need for the consolations of religion. 

A four part test has been developed for determining whether 

the establishment clause has been violated: 

First, does the Act reflect a secular 

legislative purpose? Second, is the 

primary effect of the Act to advance or 

inhibit religion? Third, does the administration of the Act foster an excessive 

government entanglement with religion? 

Fourth, does the implementation of the 

Act inhibit the free exercise of religion? 

Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 678 (1971); Attorney General 

Opinion H-511 (1975). Where a free exercise claim is not at 

issue, the fourth part is sometimes dropped from the test. 

See, -, Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. 

Kuist, supra; Letter Advisory No. 128 (1977). See also Attorney 

General Opinion M-1255 (1972) at 12; Annot., 36 A.L.R.3d 1256 

(1971). 

We believe the construction and maintenance of a hospital 

chapel for voluntary use reflects a secular purpose in that it 

will assist some patients to maintain peace of mind in the face 

of serious illness, thereby facilitating treatment. See Attorney 

General Opinion M-1255 (1972) at 8. Its primary effectis neither 

to advance nor inhibit religion but to avoid both of those 

effects. We do not believe that the employment of chaplains 

and maintenance of a chapel in a public hospital foster excessive government entanglement with religion, in view of the 

need to permit the free exercise of religion by hospital patients. 

Finally, the provision of a chapel does not inhibit the free 

exercise of religion but in fact tends to prevent its inhibition. 

Since the chapel is to be nondenominational, it will not be used 

to promote one religion and inhibit another. 

p. 4465 
Honorable Joe Resweber - Page 4 (H-1087) 

In our opinion, the Harris County Hospital District may 

constitutionally permit the construction of a nondenominationa 

chapel with donated funds and may thereafter maintain it for 

voluntary use. You have asked a legal question based on very 

few factual details, and we cannot pass on any fact situation 

beyond that presented here. 

SUMMARY 

The Harris County Hospital District has 

statutory authority to construct and 

maintain a hospital chapel to be built 

with donated funds and may do so consistently with state and federal constitutional provisions on separation of 

church and state. 

HN L. HILL 

ttorney General of Texas 

C. ROBERT HEAT%, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4466