Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court Discusses All-Male Catholic Priesthood
Catholic Culture ^ | 10/7/11

Posted on 10/08/2011 11:47:15 AM PDT by marshmallow

In argument before the Supreme Court on an anti-discrimination case, the solicitor general—representing the Obama administration—said that the government would uphold the right of the Catholic Church to preserve an all-male priesthood, but only “because the balance of relative public and private interests is different in each case.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which a woman charged that she was wrongfully dismissed from a teaching position at a Lutheran school. School officials countered that the teacher had been dismissed because she did not accept the teachings of the church. The case turned on the “ministerial exception” that is traditionally according to religious bodies, allowing them to set the standards for their own religious personnel.

Leodra Kruger, making the case for the solicitor general, questioned the “ministerial exception” directly. When questioned by Chief Justice John Roberts on whether religious groups should have the right to judge the qualifications of their own key employees, she replied: “We don't see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such.”

When Justice Stephen Breyer pressed the issue, asking specifically whether the Catholic Church should be allowed to bar women from the priesthood, Kruger replied: “The government's general interest in eradicating discrimination in the workplace is simply not sufficient to justify changing the way that the Catholic Church chooses its priests, based on gender roles that are rooted in religious doctrine.” But by casting her legal argument in terms of the government’s interests, rather than the unchanging language of the First Amendment, she left open the possibility that at some future date, under different circumstances, the government could side with women seeking ordination as Catholic priests.

Several justices expressed qualms about Kruger’s legal reasoning during the oral arguments. When they eventually issue a ruling on the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case, the Supreme Court justices may reject the solicitor general’s logic and affirm the “ministerial exception.” But their decision could also making Hosanna a landmark case in the interpretation of the First Amendment—and in the Church’s defense of the all-male priesthood.

Supreme Court asks: could discrimination claim force female priests? (CNA)

Supreme Court case could affect suits against Church for discrimination (CWN, 9/22)


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; lutheran; romancatholic; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: animal172

Yeah! The First and Forth Amendments


21 posted on 10/08/2011 1:13:52 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

So help me understand Mr.Breyer,if your senile dementia can bear with me. The US Constitution Article III was written by the Constitutional Convention and adopted by Congress-and the States —and ALL Judges are administered solemn oath to make their opinions “agreeable to the Constitution.” (AM I right so far?” ) Now unless I am mistaken that US Constitution that Justice John Marshall said Marbury v. Madison ,1803 That opine said the Oath especially governs the Judges actions in their official conduct. And Unless I am mistaken the First Amendment clearly declares Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:” Still with me? sir? Modern myth and progressive Jurists like yourself who insist we cannot know the intent of the men who wrote that. And y’all tend to believe there is a Constitutional Separation of church and State.... and y’all apply that myth on regular basis against the cause of religion. Either y’all are LIARS on separation of church and State. Or the Government has absolutely NO Power over the Church No cause to be meddling in Religious affairs.


22 posted on 10/08/2011 1:19:21 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar

Thank you.


23 posted on 10/08/2011 1:19:21 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
“We don't see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such.”

People who talk that kind of argle-bargle, you just know they're out to destroy everything we value in our culture. Someone press the Zot key ...

24 posted on 10/08/2011 1:22:49 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Skip the election and let Thomas Sowell choose the next President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
I'm not sure on the fourth amendment -- but derginitely the first.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


25 posted on 10/08/2011 1:35:07 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
For fourth definitely applied here with the illegal taping of a Confession.

The Seal: A Priest's Story

26 posted on 10/08/2011 1:36:28 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Deaf teachers....


27 posted on 10/08/2011 1:45:07 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

bookmark


28 posted on 10/08/2011 1:46:00 PM PDT by DFG (Proud Barbarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Hermaphrodite hookers...


29 posted on 10/08/2011 2:03:18 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (I never win at Scrable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I think the liberal view of separation of church and state allows interference in religious practices, if the liberals claim that such practices discriminate. We could very well see a round of lawsuits in the near future, over homosexual marriage, due to this very issue of discrimination.

I would love to see the Supremes rule:

The Constitution explicitly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

There is NO wording in the Constitution giving the Federal Government power to regulate discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

Any law or regulations which purport to give any federal entity the authority to question the decisions of any religious or religious-associated institution are hereby cancelled.

Let them have fun with that.
30 posted on 10/08/2011 3:37:21 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (When you've only heard lies your entire life, the truth sounds insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
But by casting her legal argument in terms of the government’s interests, rather than the unchanging language of the First Amendment, she left open the possibility that at some future date, under different circumstances, the government could side with women seeking ordination as Catholic priests. Key insight.
31 posted on 10/08/2011 3:43:03 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
When Justice Stephen Breyer pressed the issue, asking specifically whether the Catholic Church should be allowed to bar women from the priesthood

Interesting. Non-catholic (and liberal) Breyer asked a question that six of his colleagues--all Catholic (four and a half of them conservative)--might have felt too conflicted to ask.

32 posted on 10/08/2011 3:45:00 PM PDT by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Of course this is about the all male priesthood of the Catholic Church, and the male only position of most Baptist churches.

At root, though, this is about the right of a church to define its own doctrine. If that is not upheld, then every church in America is covertly a “Church of the US Government”, and simply awaiting the day the government steps in to pronounce new or changed rules.

Any denial that the government is targeting the male-only priesthood is also simply a matter of timing. The real issue is that they are not targeting it “NOW.”

A year, a decade, a century later, and then it might be just the right time.


33 posted on 10/08/2011 3:53:54 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

Just like the Chinese select all of the Catholic bishops, now our Dear Leader, wants to select Catholic priests!


34 posted on 10/08/2011 4:26:34 PM PDT by barney10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

What type of Lutheran school was this? Was it WELS, LCMS or ELCA?


35 posted on 10/08/2011 4:36:13 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

HOWEVER, if the government is interfering with the inner workings of the church then it is time for the churches to start openly interfering with the inner workings of the government.


36 posted on 10/08/2011 4:43:21 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: behzinlea
Non-catholic (and liberal) Breyer asked a question that six of his colleagues--all Catholic (four and a half of them conservative)--might have felt too conflicted to ask.

Chief Justice Roberts was the initial one to raise the issue of the Church and the Priesthood. Breyer was just chiming in after the fact.

37 posted on 10/08/2011 5:02:56 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
... so why is this even being brought up?

The Chief Justice raised the issue to draw out Leodra Kruger. It's called playing devil's advocate.

38 posted on 10/08/2011 5:06:55 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Thanks for clearing that up. It's interesting that the Court is made up of three Jews and six Catholics--which, for the most part, also constitutes its liberal-conservative ideological split.

I can't see this Court daring to wade into the morass of determining qualifications for membership or leadership of religious organizations. I'm cautiously hopeful that the Court will kick the Obama administration square in the forehead with at least a 7-2 vote--maybe even 8-1 (Sotomayor is so stupid and arrogant, I can't accurately predict what that idiot might do).

39 posted on 10/08/2011 5:22:21 PM PDT by behzinlea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Placemark.


40 posted on 10/08/2011 10:23:24 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson