Religion-only accommodation question

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

As I've said before, I would not read the "clergy exception"  quite so 
expansively.  It is not a shield of autonomy from legal  accountability, but rather 
an acknowledgment that an adult clergy member has  clearly assented to a 
religious institution's rules and requirements, so that  when religious rules are 
applied to employment decisions, the courts should not  become involved.  Any 
party outside that relationship introduces  an entirely different legal 
scenario.  The fact that the tort and/or  criminal victim is a member of the church 
should not be enough to put the mantle  of the "clergy exception" on the 
religious entity.  Surely, the children's  involvement provides a reason to say 
compelling interest is met, but I see no  reason to apply the exception where the 
actions are taken for secular purposes,  as in the clergy abuse cases.
 
But I do completely agree that believers consent to church governance, and  
that for that reason, they bear at least partial responsibility when their  
unchecked leaders abuse the public trust.  There are rank-and-file  Catholics who 
do agree with this view and feel the Church is financially  responsible to 
the victims it created.  There are others who argue that  they knew nothing and 
therefore the money they gave to the church should not go  to victims' 
settlements.  
 
Marci  
 
 
In a message dated 4/9/2005 11:53:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
DLaycock at law.utexas.edu writes:

Courts have persisted in treating the plaintiffs in these cases as  
outsiders, third parties, not part of the church, which seems clearly  wrong.  It is 
easy to say that church members do not consent to sexual  abuse, but that is not 
the question.  Plainly they do consent to a form  of church governance, which 
varies from church to church on grounds that are  usually theological.  
Children consent to nothing, but their parents  chose a church with a particular 
form of church governance.  Probably the  way to have written these opinions in 
jurisdictions that ruled for plaintiffs  is that the clergy exception is 
clearly implicated, but there is a compelling  interest in making some financially 
responsible entity responsible for  protecting children.  Courts have not 
bothered with that  analytic step.


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050410/3116808c/attachment.htm