As a constitutional lawyer deeply concerned over the rights of the
Church I have watched the Federal trial in Cincinnati with great
concern. The problem with the case is that very few news sources have
fairly reported on what is really at stake.
The photos
associated with the news reports show a mom with her child at a
Christmas tree.
The effort is to paint the Catholic Archdiocese at best
as a Grinch. When one reads most media reports, the picture presented is
even worse.
The Catholic Church is presented as a hypocritical ogre who
wants to put a mother and child out on the street.
Christa
Dias is an openly practicing lesbian. She underwent artificial
insemination in order to have a child outside of marriage. She signed a
contract with the Archdiocese and clearly agreed to abide by the moral
teaching of the Catholic Church as an employee of a Catholic School.
She
did not do so. Openly practicing her lesbian lifestyle and undergoing
artificial insemination are a clear breach of that contract. They are
also unquestionably at odds with the moral teaching of the Catholic
Church.
Ms. Dias sued the Archdiocese when she was dismissed from
her employment. She alleged it was not because of her open violation of
her contract and opposition to the moral teaching of the Catholic
Church.
Rather, her clever lawyers filed the case in Federal
Court. They argued she was fired because she was pregnant and that her
dismissal this was a violation of Federal Law prohibiting discrimination
against pregnant women.
Her lawyers also argued that the
Archdiocese discriminated against her as a woman because married men who
also participate in artificial insemination are not treated in the same
way.
The archdiocese argued that she worked for a Catholic School, knew
that her behavior violated the teaching of the Church and openly
violated that teaching and the contract which incorporated it. In
effect, they argued that she, like all who work in Catholic schools, was
what the Law would call Law a ministerial employee.
Or at least they should have made that argument strongly, if they did not do so. I hope they do so on appeal.
The
US Supreme Court in 2012 affirmed the longstanding body of law
protecting Churches in their employment decisions in the now famous Hosanna Tabor decision. Religious groups and churches can dismiss employees who openly oppose and defy Church doctrine.
On Monday, June 3, 2013, the jury returned their verdict in favor of
Christa Dias and against the Church. They ordered the Archdiocese of
Cincinnati to pay her 170,000. That amount included $51,000 for back
pay, $20,000 for compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Punitive damages, as the name implies, are intended to punish the party found liable.
In
other words, the Catholic Church was just fined by a civil jury for
insisting that an employee at a Catholic School abide by the moral
teaching of the Church. In the wake of the growing hostility toward the
Church and the increasing violations against the Free Exercise of
Religion in the United States, this verdict is a metaphorical warning
shot across the bow.
I am not sure what the Archdiocese is
going to do. I sincerely hope they appeal this case. It has dangerous
implications. It raises the question, can a Catholic, or for that matter
any Christian institution, insist that its employees abide by the
teaching of the Church?
On January 11, 2012 the United States Supreme Court, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued
one of the most important Religion Clause cases of the last fifty
years. It was a unanimous opinion. The majority opinion was written by
Justice Roberts. Two concurring opinions were filed; one by Justice
Thomas and a second by Justice Alito who was joined by Justice Kagan.
Cheryl
Perich was a commissioned or called lay teacher at a Lutheran School in
Michigan. In 2004 she was asked to resign after a six month leave of
absence upon certain terms and with assistance. The terms were set forth
in the internal employment manuals of the school.
The teacher
objected and the school sought a resolution under their internal dispute
resolution procedure. Ms Perich pursued another avenue - the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
She sought to file a claim in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a Federal
Statute.Those facts set up one of the most significant Church/State
cases in American Law. This is often how such matters unfold in the
world of American Jurisprudence.
Ms Perich attempted to argue that she was in essence a lay employee since she was not ordained clergy. She further argued that
she essentially taught secular subjects and thus did not fall under what
has been called the ministerial exemption to certain Federal
legislation.
The School claimed that she was called according
to their internal doctrinal schema of their Church. Further, that all
teaching at the school was a part of the mission of the Church. Finally,
they maintained that the Church's internal dispute resolution system
was to be followed because this was a Church institution.
The
fact that the decision of the US Supreme Court was unanimous added to
its weight; coupled with the issuance of three substantial opinions. The
Court sets forth in its legal analysis a wide array of assistance for
future lawyers engaged in defending Churches and religious institutions.
That has become absolutely essential these days as hostility
toward the Church grows under our secularist regime. Such legal
advocates are now regularly called upon to protect the Church from ever
increasing Governmental encroachment and interference.
For
example, this important opinion came just as the effort to compel Church
and faith based institutions to implement the Affordable Care Act ramps
up. Part of its implementation involves efforts to compel distribution
of contraceptives and the provision of abortion services or face the
wrath of the federal government.
The Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the US Constitution was intended to protect against
the establishment of a National Church and a forced adherence to its
doctrine - more aptly understood as an Anti-Establishment Clause.
Sadly,
it 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. It presumed that the values informed by faith were to be
esteemed and welcomed because they serve the common good.
Sadly, it has been turned on its head - and is now used all too often to silence the Church.
Finally,
the Free Speech clause has been subverted entirely. When the message
and the messenger being examined under its light is determined by the
State to be speaking a "religious" or now even a "moral" message, its
protections no longer apply.
This is one of the dangers of what
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI labeled a Dictatorship of Relativism. In a
culture where there is no objective truth, those who claim otherwise
become perceived as a threat.
The Hosanna Tabor case was a
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.
I
had sincerely hoped it would protect the Church and Religious
Institutions for awhile.
The Christa Dias case has ominous implications.