Posted on 10/04/2011 2:36:53 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Everyone knows the Pope is Catholic. But is his job? The Department of Justice doesn’t seem to think so.
This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, which many have called the most important religious liberty case in decades. The key issue is the scope of the “ministerial exception,” which bars most employment-related lawsuits brought against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions.
Until recently, nearly everyone—including both sides in Hosanna-Tabor and four decades of lower-court precedent—had assumed that the question was not whether the ministerial exception existed, but how far it reached. In August, however, the DOJ filed a brief attacking the ministerial exception’s very existence. As Ed Whelan has noted, the DOJ’s anti-church stance goes beyond even what Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU had suggested in their amicus brief.
The DOJ argued that the Court should deny religious organizations any “prophylactic categorical exemption” from discrimination laws. In other words, when churches fire or refuse to hire ministers for “illegal” reasons, such as sex or ethnicity, the churches should be liable. If the Court does create a categorical exemption, the DOJ continued, it should apply only to “those employees who perform exclusively religious functions.” That excludes clergy members whose job includes “secular” functions like overseeing finances or managing staff—in other words, anyone in any church with any real responsibility. Even the pope. (Prof. Mark Rienzi has noted this absurd consequence of the DOJ position.)
The DOJ claims that it isn’t taking aim at millennia-old traditions, such as the all-male Catholic priesthood, that are currently protected by the ministerial exception. But that distinction is political, not legal, and it’s unlikely to last for long if the Supreme Court eliminates the ministerial exception.
If the DOJ prevails, courts will need to open on Sundays to hear the flood of lawsuits second-guessing churches’ decisions on ministers. At least one plaintiff has already tried to force the Catholic Church to ordain female priests. A federal district court rejected her suit — but only thanks to the ministerial exception. Otherwise, it’s unclear how the district court would have stopped would-be priestesses from forcing their way into Catholic pulpits.
Similarly, the demise of the ministerial exception would mean that Orthodox Jews would have to start appointing women rabbis. (One can imagine the plaintiff’s argument: It’s a lot easier for a woman rabbi to fulfill the Levitical requirement not to shave one’s beard.)
Actually, Orthodox Jews could find themselves in an even more ridiculous bind. Jews naturally want Jewish rabbis. Other than converts, Orthodox Jews only consider someone Jewish if his mother was a recognized Jew. That’s precisely the kind of ethnic discrimination that the ministerial exception protects — and that the DOJ’s brief seeks to eliminate. If the DOJ’s argument prevails, Orthodox synagogues could be sued for refusing to hire a rabbi who considers himself Jewish, but who isn’t Jewish in the eyes of his congregation. This isn’t merely hypothetical: In 2009, a British court ruled that a Jewish school racially discriminated against an applicant when it denied him admission because his mother was not Jewish.
The DOJ claims that it isn’t taking aim at millennia-old traditions, such as the all-male Catholic priesthood, that are currently protected by the ministerial exception. But that distinction is political, not legal, and it’s unlikely to last for long if the Supreme Court eliminates the ministerial exception.
Keep your stinking writs off of my Church!
Respectfully, don’t get your hopes up, Alex.
I don’t think THIS Pope has any concerns. The NEXT Pope, on the other hand, well...
;-) <—maybe
Of course they did. Ritual human sacrifice is part and parcel of their Humanist religion and the fascists will never acknowledge that any other faith has the right to disagree. After sixty years of fascist democrat control, this is the predictable result. The State now not only controls all education, it has established a State Religion and intends to destroy all other religion right along with the last visages of non-government run education. The current favoritism being shown to Islam is no exception or acknowledgment of another religion. It's just a tactical ploy (for both sides of the hideous pact) the same way the Hitler/Stalin pact was a ploy to buy time.
The democrat fascist party is now and always has been dedicated to the goal of the party and the party alone deciding who holds office as well as being the final authority on all aspects of society. When they integrated eugenics into their ideal of a ruling nobility back in the late 1800s and managed to succeed in establishing government run education, they finally had the tools they needed to destroy the Republic and establish a nobility. Losing the Civil War had slowed them down, but it didn't destroy their dedication to a) racist social stratification, b) their right to determine all issues of faith and morality for "the masses", and c) their belief that there is no God, only the god like nobility they would establish to rule over the masses.
Emperor worship is the next step, with some "poor" Caesar figure being slain (figuratively or literally) by the Senate and the masses rising in revolt to establish a new order to rule us all. It may sound funny, but the same spirit that managed to destroy the Roman Republic is alive and well and has been in control of the democrat fascist party ever since it was founded.
In fairness, Alex did not opine about the potential impact of this case, specifically in regards to the Catholic Church.
However, I wonder how Alex or his co-religionists would feel if the DOJ was able to force the OPC to accept “Sister Mary Pantsuit” as a congregational administrator? (Not to preach or whatever purely “religious” functions are done in the OPC...just the administrative tasks...like staffing, education, etc.) After all, she might be the most qualified for the position (a PhD in Parish Administration from De Sales). They certainly would not be able to discriminate against her based upon her religion, her sex, her sexual orientation, etc...
Perhaps she would be in the position to mandate ministerial assignments...I understand that there are a lot of PCUSA ministers looking for jobs. She could mandate that OPC hire them.
That is the real impact of this decision, if it goes the DOJ’s way.
Egalitarianism. Another product of a Protestant outlook.
anyway the “is the Pope Italian”, worked until John Paul II....
who knew that after a Polish Pope we would have a German Pope...
If we don't drive these demons out of office next year, the second Obozo term will see priests, ministers, and maybe rabbis in jail.
This always perplexed me.
They consider themselves the children of Abraham, not Sarah. And are the decedents of the 12 SONS of Jacob, not their wives. And have been considered to be quite a patriarchal group. At what point did they switch to the female side for identity, and why?
Perhaps jjotto or blasater1960 who are jewish would be able to tell us about this. hello jjott, blasater1960 — a question on orthodox Judaism
I have always thought that the left would try this, but did not expect it so soon.
I’m sure there is a Holder appointee in the DOJ who wants to force a quota on the Roman Catholics of 50% female priests and 10% homosexuals...
If this goes through, are Court ordered changes to doctrine far behind? How about a Baptist Sunday School being told they can’t use parts of Proverbs in a lesson because it is “sexist”?
It is a true slippery slope. Frankly, however the Congress does have the power to act and short circuit this approach. Using it’s 14th amendment powers to enforce the 1st Amendment, it can make clear in legislation that any church related hiring is off limits to state or local intrusion (including both churches and their subsidiary organizations such as schools, hospitals and charities), and prohibiting discrimination against churches and subsidiary organizations by local, state, or federal governments for any reason.
Yes, Jewishness is determined by the mother and tribal affiliation by the father. From Jewfaq.
The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.
In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says “he [i.e., the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others.” No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).
Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being “among the community of Israel” (i.e., a Jew).
On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.
And there are kabbalistic reasons as well.
Because it removed the question of paternity from the equation and left the Jewish lads free to father children with non-Jews (slaves, the conquered, prostitutes, etc.) without any strings or obligations.
It just occurred to me that not all the children of Abraham are Jews. Only those who came from Sarah. So the answer to my question is the tradition started in Isaac’s generation.
Yes, exactly. And also note that Abraham was Abram and uncircumsized and had not recieved the "final" covenant from G-d when he had Ishmael through Hagar. It was a circumsized Abraham, through Sarah the first Jewish mother. And at that point, Abraham kept the law even though it had not been formally given. Gen 26:5
Also note Genesis 22, where God Himself tells Abraham, “Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac...”
Do you have a source for that belief? Are you saying the scriptures would be okay with such behavior?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.