Catholic Charities Issue

Sat Mar 11 15:14:31 PST 2006

While I don't have an immediate answer to Marty's qusetion, I want to commend him and others who have focused on the legal question involved.  As for the posters who want to use the issue as a vehicle for criticizing the Church for its postition, and lecture it on how to reform its theology while at the same time revealing palpable ignorance of its theology, I can only say that I am embarrassed.
Richard Dougherty

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Marty Lederman" <marty.lederman at comcast.net>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Date:  Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:33:36 -0500

>I didn't mean to question the sincere religious motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is following).  I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts prevents CC from doing, and whether and how that particular legal restriction imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the Church or of those involved in CC.  Presumably, as Alan suggests, the Church remains free to faciliate adoptions among Church adherents, right?  
>
>I'm asking this not to make a point, but because I'm genuining curious about what state law prohibits and how that restriction impinges on religious liberty.
> 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Douglas Laycock" <DLaycock at law.utexas.edu>
>To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 PM
>Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
>
>
>It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that it's not for profit.  I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church.  Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to sustain them or because other groups engage in similar activities for secular reasons, is not in my view a legitimate means of escaping religious liberty guarantees.
> 
> 
> 
>Douglas Laycock
>University of Texas Law School
>727 E. Dean Keeton St.
>Austin, TX  78705
>512-232-1341
>512-471-6988 (fax)
>
>________________________________
>
>From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Marty Lederman
>Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
>
>
>Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its religious exercise?
> 
> 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Douglas Laycock" <DLaycock at law.utexas.edu <mailto:DLaycock at law.utexas.edu> >
>To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> >
>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM
>Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
>
>
>Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause.  See the Society of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting.  
> 
>So why did Catholic Charities surrender rather than litigate?  Maybe they figured they would just make bad law with that claim in the court that found a constitutional right to gay marriage.  If that's the reason, that sort of restraint in the choice of what claims to file should be practiced a lot more widely.  If that just didn't think about the state law, that's much less admirable.
> 
> 
> 
>Douglas Laycock
>University of Texas Law School
>727 E. Dean Keeton St.
>Austin, TX  78705
>512-232-1341
>512-471-6988 (fax)
>
>________________________________
>
>From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu>  on behalf of Will Esser
>Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 12:35 PM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
>
>
>Paul,
> 
>Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church.  Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption with gay couples).  In your example, there is no conflict for the Church in ministering to the souls of those in the prison system.  Such action is not in any sense active participation in capital punishment.  
> 
>I'm entirely with Rick in saluting Catholic Charities for its decision.  People may disagree with the rationale for the decision, but the decision is ultimately an act of a religious organization placing its religious values first.
> 
>Will
>
>Paul Finkelman <paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu <mailto:paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu> > wrote:
>
>I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison system because the Church opposes Capital punishment?  It would be a shame for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent. 
>
>Paul Finkelman
>
>Rick Duncan wrote:
>
>
>The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be ! used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."
>
>Here <http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ <http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/> >  and here <http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/ <http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/churchs_rift_with_beacon_hill_grows/> > .
>
>
>
>
>Rick Duncan 
>Welpton Professor of Law 
>University of Nebraska College of Law 
>Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>
>
>"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
>
>"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
>________________________________
>
>Yahoo! Mail
>Use Photomail <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38867/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com> >  to share photos without annoying attachme! nts. 
>
>________________________________
>
>  _______________________________________________  To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>   To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>     Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>--   Paul Finkelman  Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law  University of Tulsa College of Law  3120 East 4th Place  Tulsa, OK   74104-3189    918-631-3706 (office)  918-631-2194 (fax)    paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu <mailto:paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>
>Will Esser --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
>Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
>Charlotte, North Carolina
>
>********************
>We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
>the real tragedy is when men are afraid of the light.
>Plato (428-345 B.C.)
>********************
>
>
>________________________________
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu <mailto:Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu> 
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> 
>> 
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>> 
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>