We are now set for a major First Amendment showdown.
The problem?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making any laws that infringe on the free exercise of religion (and the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted as meaning that state congresses from doing the same thing).
This means that Catholics are free to pursue the obligations of their religion.
Among the obligations of their religion are to obey canon law.
Canon law requies that parish assets cannot be alienated unless a number of requirements are met (such as Rome’s approval in case that the proposed alienation amounts to more than $3 million bucks).
The U.S. Constitution thus means that Catholics are free to honor their religious obligation under canon law of not handing over more than $3 million dollars of parish assets unless Rome okays it.
NOW . . .
A federal judge has just ruled that federal bankruptcy law TRUMPS canon law and thus the First Amendment to the Constitution.
While I certainly do not wish to minimize the severity of suffering and betrayal on the part of the victims, does it surprise anybody that the sex abuse scandal, from the start, became a staging ground from which to wage war against the Church at large?
Anyone?
I have little faith in our legal system. Any absurdity is allowed so long as certain people sit on the bench.
I wonder if states will now be sued into bankruptcy because some state workers break the law. Naw, that’d be too consistent.
Although, I also have little faith in our legal system; I have less faith in our bishops. They will roll over and ante up.
The following occurred to me while reading Jimmy’s and Ed’s material: could a counterargument then be made that obedience to canon law does not fall under the First Amendment, but is rather a possibly treasonous act of submission to a foreign head of state?
It’s unlikely that obeying canon law could ever be held to be a form of treason. Canon law is not the law of the Pope or of the Vatican State but, rather, the “law” of the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t hold out any hope of a court finding a breach of the free exercise clause. It seems to me that the courts really don’t know what to do with the free exercise clause because of the pre-occupation with the establishment clause.
Sure it could be made. Henry VIII thought of that long ago. That’s what “praemunire” prosecutions were all about then.
I grant that it could be but it would require a change in both the laws of this country and a reversion of the Vatican to the type of government it held at the time of Henry VIII. As things stand I think my statement is correct.
DaveB, I was not, FWIW, repsonding to your argument, which I have not assessed, as it was not displayed when I posted.
I think both DaveB and Ed Peters are correct.
Ed is correct that adherence to canon law could be counted as treason in the sense that it is hypothetically possible that a court could rule it so, as was the case under Henry VIII.
DaveB is correct that this is unlikely in U.S. courts. Also, this would not seem to be a fair reading of the U.S. Constitution. If it did then every attendance of Mass to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation would be treasonous–which was clearly not what was meant at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Oh, come on. It doesn’t violate the first amendment to subject a religious group to the same universal set of bankruptcy laws that apply to every other debtor. The internal regulations of the group don’t trump the public law. If canon law claimed that the church was totally immune from paying its debts (like the civil judgments that led to the bankruptcy here), would it violate the first amendment to enforce them?
It also occurs to me that the dioceses in question want to have it both ways–they sought to avail themselves of the protection of the bankruptcy courts when they were in over their heads in debt, but now seek to pick and chose the parts of the bankruptcy law they will follow.
According to http://iraqwar.org/justwar.htm, this is not the first time that the rights of the Church have been trampled by the “rights of the state”.
But as World War II approached, it is no surprise that Catholic priests, intellectuals, and politicians led the movement for non-intervention. By the same token, notes Patrick Allitt (Catholic Intellectuals, 1993), in contrast to those cheering on all aspects of the war, “Catholic journals in the war years never waxed effusive about the Soviet Union, Stalin, or communism, despite the Grand Alliance.’ Once again accused of subversion (Italians were particularly targeted, and even put in concentration camps), Catholics had to prove their loyalty to the U.S. state by putting the flag of the federal government in every parish. It remains to this day, to “balance” the papal flag.
Can anyone tell me if there is any truth to this statement? This is what the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops website says about this (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/flag.shtml) :
The origin of the display of the American flag in many parishes in the United States appears have its origins in the offering of prayers for those who served during the Second World War (1941-1945). At that time, many bishops and pastors provided a book of remembrance near the American flag, requesting prayers for loved ones – especially those serving their country in the armed forces – as a way of keeping before the attention of the faithful the needs of military families.
If there is some truth to the laws of the state requiring the U.S. flag to be displayed, then this sheds some light on the case of Stephen Kobasa, a former English teacher at Kolbe Cathedral High School in Bridgeport, CT., who was dismissed for refusing to fly a US flag in his classroom. (See http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs10182005.html)
Then again, all of this could just be peace activist spin. I don’t know – I need some additional info to make an informed judgement.