Hosanna-Tabor: U.S. Supreme Court Church-State Decision Protects the Church

1/15/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.

"The Court agrees that there is such a ministerial exception. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.

"By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

"The EEOC and Perich contend that religious organizations can defend against employment discrimination claims by invoking their First Amendment right to freedom of association. They thus see no need-and no basis-for a special rule for ministers grounded in the Religion Clauses themselves.

"Their position, however, is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. The Court cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers."

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to protect against the establishment of a National Church and a forced adherence to its doctrine by all citizens. It was more aptly understood as an Anti-Establishment Clause.

Sadly, the interpretation of the Clause has devolved into an interpretation of a Church/State separation which is hostile to religious institutions, discriminates against people of faith and seeks to censor religious speech and expression in the public square.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was intended to protect religious institutions and people of faith in their vital role in speaking and acting in an authentically pluralistic society so as to offer their contribution to the common good.

It was presumed that the values informed by religious faith were to be esteemed and welcomed because they actually serve the common good. Sadly, the Free Exercise Clause has been turned on its head - and is now used all too often to silence the Church and the religious speaker and actor.

Finally, the Free Speech clause has been subverted entirely. When the message and the messenger being examined under its increasingly hostile scrutiny is determined by the "State" to be speaking a "religious" or even a "moral" message, its important protections no longer apply.

Religious or "moral" speech is now routinely censored. This is one of the dangers of what Pope Benedict XVI once labeled a "Dictatorship of Relativism". In a culture where there is no objective truth, those who claim otherwise become perceived as a threat.

So, given the growing hostility we now encounter in this Nation and much of the West, this resounding reaffirmation of the rights of Churches and religious institutions to operate freely and follow their own internal doctrine - as well as to determine their own way of resolving their own disputes - at least protects the Church and Religious Institutions for awhile.

However, those of us who know that objective truths such as the fundamental human right to life and the primacy of marriage and the family and society founded upon it have universal applicability cannot rest. Decisions such as Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission simply give us more time.

We know that the truths we proclaim about the dignity of every human person, marriage and authentic human freedom are not simply a matter of our religious doctrine. We also know they cannot be contained within the walls of our churches. They are the very sources of our liberty and are grounded in the Natural Law.

Values informed by the by the Jewish and Christian heritage of the West have given rise to its entire approach to self governance. We cannot - we must not- and we will not - allow them to remain behind the walls of our Church buildings.

After all, that violates our underlying mission - which permeates our entire reason for existence. The Christian faith may be personal, but it is not private. Its message is profoundly public, meant for the whole world. And its messengers will never stop proclaiming it in word, lifestyle and deed.

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: Hosanna - Tabor, US Supreme Court, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, censorship, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, Justice Roberts, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Keith A F

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 23 Comments

spiritofallages
1 year ago
Santorum is not being backed by the GOP. YET! This man will not please all but he will act with regard to our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We have not seen this honest of a politician and we need to support him. Please continue to weigh all that occurs. The sooner that the GOP backs the peoples' choice, the sooner they can start to rally behind the candidate who will beat the liberals in November.
vance
1 year ago
Rob, unless the Conservatives win with a super majority, the fanatic Abortionist Marxist Democrat Party will play every dirty trick up their sleeves to block Pro-Life legislation.
vance
1 year ago
Judy, yes, when Rob and Everett talk about "Both Sides" being equally responsible, they conveniently over look the fact that the Liberals on "Both Sides" have blocked any kind of Pro-Life legislation. The politicians who they voted for are responsible for our protecting the status quo to keep those Baby Killing machines running in high gear. The obedient followers of the Marxist Democrat Party will never challenge their leaders or hold them accountable. When GOP politicians misbehave, the Conservatives throw them under the bus in a hurry. Not so with the Marxists. Charles Rangel, Eric Holder anyone?
Rob
1 year ago
vance, I am not holding my breath for the starts to align that we have these supposed conservative conservatives. This brings me full circle to something I've said from the beginning. If the life issue was an important to the GOP as taxes and deregulation was, this would be a done deal. I guess we can continue to hope, but I'm not holding my breath.
Judy
1 year ago
Vance: You clarified your message quite well on your last post, 1-18. That said, I of course am thrilled at the outcome! However, as Everett's post points out,1-12, I wonder if the reason that it did go so smooth...especially w/Obama appointees, was because this is an election year. Just thinking? Anyone else? Blessings...
Vance
1 year ago
Rob, a Conservative President Santorum or Gingrich with a Super Majority Conservative Congress is the only way Roe vs Wade will be over turned. A Super Majority means that the Conservative President will have a "Filibusterer Free" congress just as Obama had to ram his Obamacare down America's throat because the GOP did not have the numbers to stop it. Bush's GOP majorities were compromised by Liberal GOP's like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffey, and others who were Hardcore Abortionists. They always teamed up with the Marxist Democrat Party to protect Killing Babies. This is why all Liberals from either party must be defeated.
Rob
1 year ago
So vance are you saying that given our recent history of super majorities, that the folks in the majority were not conservative enough? Wouldn't the same apply to the democrats when they failed to pass or even bring to the floor FOCA? I'm not sure what it will take to get the stars to align to get Roe overturned, but it just seems like you are constantly moving the bar by saying they were really liberals in disguise. At some point don't you just have to admit that when it comes to social issues, the status quo rules the day? I don't see much movement from that on abortion at the federal level. Dems will tinker with the Mexico city policy and enact things to make getting abortions easier, GOP will reverse them when they get in office....all very predictable. But at the end of the day they never seriously go after any real legislation. Given our economic situation, do you really believe that Santorum or Gingrich will really make this a part of the REAL platfor? Call me jaded, but I think not.
Vance
1 year ago
Everett, It's good that you question everything. If you question the Catholic Church your answer is going to be truth every time. Keep questioning and keep getting the truth. If you are talking about the Liberal Establishment Republicans, I agree with you. They hate conservatives and will do everything possible to keep them out of the game. If we want to see an end to Roe vs Wade, a President Santorum or Gingrich with a super majority Conservative Congress is the only way that will happen. Snake oil? Again I agree. Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party are both the snake and the oil. Name calling: Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party are taking this country and the Catholic Church down. I refuse to suffer fools. We have millions of people suffering because of these evil people. They deserve no respect from me.
Doug Indeap
1 year ago
It bears observing that in this decision the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the separation of church and state that some today attack as a myth. While the Court did not utter that phrase, it expressly affirmed earlier Supreme Court decisions that plainly proclaim that principle and predicated its decision on those earlier decisions.
Hikarus Prime
1 year ago
Excellent news. Please improve the format to present in the first paragraph a good explanation of the news. It only states that the Court took a good decision but ir doesn't say what decicion. After succesfully stating the news in the first paragraph, then we can eventually read the details.

Blessings,

Prev12 3 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment