One of the arguments making the rounds is that Hosanna-Tabor cannot be decided in favor of the teacher's right to sue her church for retaliatory firing because, down the road, this would affect the right of the Catholic church to ordain only males. This is absurd.
Nonetheless, it has been widely reported. The best explanation I've seen for why this notion is false is given by Leslie Griffin:
"...Let me be clear. No one argues that the courts can force the Catholic Church to ordain women. That argument is a red herring. In the forty years that the ministerial exception has existed, I count only one court case of a Catholic woman who (unsuccessfully) sued to become a priest, but at least ten cases of Catholic women who knew with absolute certainty they were not priests. Yet those women were suddenly ordained ministers when they went to court to enforce their employment contracts against Catholic employers...". .........for more, go here.
"...Let me be clear. No one argues that the courts can force the Catholic Church to ordain women. That argument is a red herring. In the forty years that the ministerial exception has existed, I count only one court case of a Catholic woman who (unsuccessfully) sued to become a priest, but at least ten cases of Catholic women who knew with absolute certainty they were not priests. Yet those women were suddenly ordained ministers when they went to court to enforce their employment contracts against Catholic employers...". .........for more, go here.
I was glad to read her comments about why the priesthood will not be impacted, no matter how this case is decided. Not only do they make perfect sense, but they also introduced me to the Weishuhn case.
After you examine Weishuhn v. Catholic Diocese of Lansing, Case No. 10-760 (another school teacher, also in Michigan), which is also being considered for review by the high court, you begin to understand what is really at stake. It is not doctrinal tradition, spiritual exercise, or belief, but simply: how far does church autonomy extend? Is it right to disregard employment discrimination because the employer is a religious organization? We must remember that even in their own brief in Hosanna-Tabor, the Lutheran church admitted that firing Perich was retaliatory. Still, they want to get away with it.
Be that as it may, even assuming that religious institutions should get a pass on employment claims, should they also be immunized against suspect and even criminal behavior? Incredible as it may seem, this is the terrain of the lesser-known Weishuhn case.
The writ of certiorari is an eye-opener. Cumulatively, the arguments make you wonder why the court is bothering with Hosanna-Tabor; Weishuhn appears to be more cleanly stated.
check it out:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the ministerial exception grounded in
the First Amendment should be so broadly defined as
to bar employees of religious institutions, such as
teachers of secular and religious classes, from
asserting a state civil rights claim where the
employment action does not involve selection of
employees or an examination of church doctrine?
2. Whether an employee of a religious institution
who is found to be a ministerial employee should be
barred from bringing a state whistleblowers’ action
when the employee was discharged for reporting
suspected violations of state law which the employee
was required to report?
=====
The case shows to what spectacularly misguided use the "ministerial exception" can be put when placed in the wrong hands. In this case, the hands of the Most Reverend Earl Boyea, bishop of the Lansing Diocese, who is arguing, in essence, that when a mandated reporter (a school teacher), acting in good conscience and according to civil law, reports allegations of abuse, and is fired, that the teacher has no claim against her employer. Why? Because the teacher is a minister, and the employer is a church.
But wait, you say, females, whether teachers or not, cannot be ministers in the Roman Catholic church. True, Boyea would say. However, supposedly, Weishuhn's conduct in reporting, and the church's conduct in firing her, are both covered under the "ministerial exception" and cannot be examined by civil courts. It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to know that's a bogus argument.
Even more egregiously, the Florida Supreme Court refused to intervene when a principal was fired after making allegations of personal sexual assault against a Catholic priest........her claim went nowhere, as a direct result of the "ministerial exception."
Even more egregiously, the Florida Supreme Court refused to intervene when a principal was fired after making allegations of personal sexual assault against a Catholic priest........her claim went nowhere, as a direct result of the "ministerial exception."
I wish I were making this stuff up.
Posts
