Supreme Court Sides with Religious Freedom

The Supreme Court has ruled that two Catholic schools were within their rights to dismiss two teachers on the basis of classifying them as “ministers” rather than secular professionals.

So, what this all came down to was that the US Supreme Court had already established something called the "ministerial exception" which said that a religious institition can hire and fire for mission. In short, if someone is not living up to their role as minister then they can be fired. So that was established. But the left thought of an end-around. And this case was it. They decided that religious institutions had a ministerial exception but the institutions themselves wouldn't get to to decide who, in fact, was considered a minister. It's a rather clever way to hollow out the prior ruling.

“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” wrote Alito.

“Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, being joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in which she argued that the decision “strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections.”

So this is good news which proves that Justice Roberts will only abandon us part of the time. Yay for solace.



Comments

  1. A disturbing point is that this ever made it to the courts, sthus urrendering the magisterium to the state.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Lefebvrists in crisis mode
    The Lefebvrist bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas, sedevacantists, are in a crisis mode today.But there problem is also that of Lefbvrists in general.
    Sanborn and Pivarunas know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise. If they do interpret the Council without the false premise, they would be supporting 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). There would be no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
    But if they affirm Feeneyite EENS the Jewish Left will come after them. They will be labelled Anti Semetic etc and their websites will be targeted. There bank balances will be threatened and so also their seminary property.
    It is the same with Roberto dei Mattei and Dr.Taylor Marshall for example. As long as they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, with Cushingite theology, the New Theology, there is a rupture with Tradition and Feeneyite EENS. The Jewish Left and the present two popes appreciate this.No problem.They are saying the same thing. Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for them too.
    If Mattei and Marshall did not use the false premise to interpet Vatican Council II they would be affirming Feeneyite EENS and this would not be allowed by the Left. This would be asking for trouble.So Mattei and Marshall use the Lefebvrist Theology to please the Jewish Left.
    It is like Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery who affirm Feeneyite EENS, the strict interpretation of EENS. But they also interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a rupture created with EENS and the Athanasius Creed. So they are tolerated by the Left.
    Similarly Vigano and Brandmuller will not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise; the Lefebvrist new theology. They are tolerated. They can have all the discussions they want.
    As along as they critize Vatican Council II and project it as a rupture with Tradition the Vatican and the Left don't mind. Since this is what the Left and the Vatican also do.
    However if they did not use the false premise they would be telling the average Catholic that they can interpret the Council in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS as in the 1930's and before.
    This would be unacceptable for the Left. Why would they permit Taylor Marshall to have a website and Roberto dei Mattei to have his media in Italy ?
    He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. The Internet is owned by those who oppose and hate the Church. So Michael Voris has to comply and Dr.Joseph Shaw and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf tow the line. The FIUV and Una Voce also interpret the Council as a rupture with Tradition.
    So it is safe for Vigano, Brandmuller and Schneider to interpret Lumen Gentium 8 for example, as an exception to EENS. This is politically correct. However if they said that LG 8 was not an exception to EENS, since it referred to a hypothetical case, this would be a crisis for them.
    Now Sanborn and Pivarunas know that there is no basis for sedevacantism with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally. But they are not going to affirm the Council in harmony with Tradition. They need the hermeneutic of rupture.-Lionel Andrades

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment