And, of course, not all of the parties in the combined cases are Catholic. Having once worked at Geneva College, I will say with confidence that Reformed Presbyterians don’t care a bit what the Pope thinks.
Brad Bradley P. Jacob<http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/faculty_staff/jacob.cfm> Associate Professor Regent University School of Law t. 757.352.4523; f. 757.352.4571 brad...@regent.edu<mailto:brad...@regent.edu> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/regentlaw> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/RegentLaw> | SSRN<http://www.ssrn.com/author=519370> [cid:image001.jpg@01D0F61B.F29F9940]<http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of K Chen Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:26 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Zubik and Pope Francis on Contraception It might put them in an awkward position having to disagree with the Pope, but Catholic doctrine has room for them to interpret and even dissent. The court (should) be quite uninterested in sorting that out for any legal purpose. -Kevin Chen, Esq. On Feb 18, 2016 3:13 PM, "Tessa Dysart" <tdys...@regent.edu<mailto:tdys...@regent.edu>> wrote: Under Thomas v. Review Board I would think it wouldn’t matter if the Priests for Life disagreed. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:00 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Zubik and Pope Francis on Contraception News reports say that Pope Francis at a new conference in Mexico said that contraceptives may be used in the case of mothers who may be trying not to get pregnant because of the Zika virus. He is quoted as saying that "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil." Should this affect the Court's view of the complicity-substantial burden argument in Zubik and the other cases being reviewed along with it. for example, the Priests For Life cert petition asserted: "The Gospel of Life is an expression of the Catholic Church’s position and central teaching regarding the value and inviolability of human life. Contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients are contrary to this teaching, and their use can never be approved, endorsed, facilitated, promoted, or supported in any way." Or are the Pope's views on this irrelevant to the substantial burden argument if Priests for Life disagree with those views? Howard Friedman ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4530/11640 - Release Date: 02/16/16 _______________________________________________ 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 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.
