AG's Office Asks to Monitor Priests

[paul finkelman]

when I read about Bishop Law's moving the offending priests from place to place to
avoid the law enforcement and his own flock from finding out about what he had
done, I too checked to see if it was April 1.  Alas it was not!

When I read about the $20 million he has spent to buy off those injured by him and
his priests I also checked to see if it was April 1.  Again, it was not.


--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74104-3189

phone 918-631-3706
Fax   918-631-2194
e-mail:   paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu



Alan Gunn wrote:

> At 09:48 AM 3/11/2002 -0700, Alexander Dushku wrote:
> >The answer to Eugene's question has to be no, and it raises no difficult
> questions.  Unconstitutional remedies are ... unconstitutional.  The sort
> of continuous, systematic, entanglement--the direct regulation of who shall
> bear the priestly mantle and how he shall be trained and
> supervised--proposed by the AG might well be more devastating to the
> autonomy of churches than anything suggested by government in a century.
> Decades of ministerial exception jurisprudence clearly bars this sort of
> thing, even if a remedy.  If the Establishment Clause allows such
> regulation, the very notion of entanglement is dead.  How could we possibly
> quibble about state monitors in parochial school math classes and other
> such minutiae if the courts were to uphold the AG's plan for the regulation
> of priests themselves?  What next, the Mass. Department of Roman Catholic
> Affairs?
>
>         Indeed. When I read Eugene's first message on this, my reaction was to
> glance at the calendar to see whether it was April 1 already.
>
> Alan Gunn
> Notre Dame Law School