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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu ><mailto:religionlaw@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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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@lists.ucla.edu <mailto:Religionlaw@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) [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> > >_______________________________________________ >To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu ><mailto:Religionlaw@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@lists.ucla.edu >> <mailto:Religionlaw@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@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. > > > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@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.
