St. Louis Archdiocese Loses Suit To Regain Control of Parish

St. Louis Review reports at length on decision handed down yesterday by a Missouri state trial court judge rejecting attempts by the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis and former parishioners of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church to return the congregation to communion with the Catholic Church.  The church was created as a separate non-profit corporation in 1891. A parallel parish, originally created by the Franciscans, operated under the control of the Archbishop at the church. In 2003, St. Stanislaus' members rejected demands from the Catholic Archdiocese to restructure and turn its assets over to the Archbishop. A year later the Archbishop declared that St. Stanislaus is no longer a Catholic parish and moved the exsiting parish to a different location. Board members, and a priest hired by the church, were excommunicated.

In Krauze v. Polish Roman Catholic St. Stanislaus Parish, (MO Cir. Ct., March 15, 2012), the court held that Church bylaws are not inconsistent with its Articles of Agreement, and that the church's property belongs to the congregation, not the Archdiocese. Summarizing the issues it faced, the court said:

[I]n 1891 the predecessors of today’s litigants struck a tacit bargain that, in regard to St. Stanislaus, the Archdiocese would not overreach into civil corporate matters and the Parish Corporation would leave religious matters to the Archbishop. Since neither side anticipated that the other would ever break that deal, both sides now seek to have the Court enter a judgment declaring that the other side has breached....

After analysis of the articles, the charter, the bylaws and Canon law, ultimately it is clear that a declaratory judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor would not finally resolve issues with St.Stanislaus Corporation.

In passing on the question of title to the church's property, the court said:

The Archbishop may own the souls of wayward St. Stanislaus parishioners, but the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation owns its own property.

Canadian Priest Sues LifeSite News For Defamation

LifeSite News yesterday reported on a $500,000 defamation lawsuit filed in 2011 against it and five of its staff in Canada by Quebec Catholic priest and former member of Parliament, Raymond Gravel.  Apparently Gravel objects to articles published online by LifeSite News that describe him as being "pro-abortion." Examples of the articles can be found here and here. Fr. Gravel is a critic of the Church's teachings on homosexuality, and apparently describes himself as "pro-choice" on abortion. LifeSite News says that defending the suit will cost it $130,000. Apparently LifeSite News' primary defense is that Gravel has contributed significantly to his own damages by granting interviews in which he repeats the statements that he claims are defamatory. It argues that he has fueled his own reputation, and that LifeSite News was not responsible for his decision to leave politics. LifeSite News has also counterclaimed for damages against Gravel.  Available details on the parties' claims are sketchy at this point.

Private Business and Its Owner Challenge Contraceptive Coverage Mandate On Religious Freedom Grounds

The American Center for Law and Justice yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit by a small business and its principal owner challenging on religious liberty grounds the Obama administration's mandate requiring health insurance policies to cover contraceptive services. CatholicVote.org Legal Fund, which filed the suit on behalf of plaintiffs, also issued a press release. The complaint (full text) in O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, filed 3/15/2012), alleges:

3. Plaintiff, Frank R. O’Brien Jr., is an adherent of the Catholic religion. As the individual with the controlling interest in Plaintiff, O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (“OIH”) and its subsidiaries, O’Brien wishes to conduct his business in a manner that does not violate the principle of his religious faith.

4. O’Brien has concluded that complying with the Mandate would require him to violate his religious beliefs because it would require him and/or the corporations he controls to pay for, not only contraception and sterilization, but also abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “Ella” come within the Mandate’s and HRSA’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.

The complaint alleges violations of the 1st Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.  While several lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated non-profit organizations challenging the Affordable Health Care Act mandate (see prior posting), this is the first challenge by a private business.  The complaint says that the company's mission, as described on its website "is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society."

The lawsuit raises a number of complicated issues not directly addressed in the complaint.  These include whether business entities (here "limited liability companies") can have protected religious beliefs, and, if not, when are an individual owner's religious beliefs infringed by mandates placed on the business entity.

Ugandan Gay Rights Group Sues American Activist in U.S. Court

On Wednesday, a Ugandan LGBTI rights group, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed a lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute in a U.S. federal district court in Massachusetts against Massachusetts resident Scott Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries. The complaint (full text) in Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, (D MA, filed 3/14/2012), alleges that Lively, along with counterparts in Uganda, has waged a decades-long campaign to persecute persons in Uganda on the basis of their gender and/or sexual orientation and gender identity. (See prior related posting.)The complaint claims:

In large part due to defendant Lively's contributions to the conspiracy to persecute LGBTI person in Uganda, plaintiff ... as well as its individual staff-members ... have suffered severe deprivations of fundamental rights. Their very existence has been demonized through a coordinated campaign ... to attribute to the "genocidal" "gay movement" an irrepressible predilection to commit rape and child sexual abuse.... [T]hey have endured severe discrimination in virtually every meaningful aspect of their civil and political lives; their association has been criminalized; their advocacy on issues central to their health and political participation has been suppressed and punished; and they have been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As a result, ... [they] live in persistent fear of harassment, arbitrary arrest and physical harm, including death.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a declaratory judgment that Lively's conduct violated the law of nations, and other appropriate relief. The New York Times, Religion Dispatches,

Russian Court Backs Government's Rejection of Olympic "Pride House"

Gay Star News reports today that a trial court in Russia has backed last year's decision by the Russian Ministry of Justice to refuse the registration of the NGO that planned to organize a "PRIDE House" for gay and lesbian athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.  The court wrote in part:

The aims of the organization contradict the basics of public morality and the policy of the state in the area of family motherhood and childhood protection. The activities of the [Pride House] movement leads to propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation which can undermine the security of the Russian society and the state, provoke social-religious hatred, which is the feature of the extremist character of the activity.

Moreover it can undermine the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation due to the decrease of Russia’s population.

Such aims as creating an understanding of the necessity to fight against homophobia and the creation of positive attitudes towards LGBT sportsmen contradicts with the basics of public morality because they are directed towards the increase of the number of citizens of sexual minorities which breaches the understanding of good and evil, good and bad, vice and virtue.

A successful PRIDE House was created in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics there.

White House Negotiations With Bishops Focuses On Definition of Religious Organization

Reuters reported yesterday that the Obama administration is quietly negotiating with representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to resolve their high-profile disagreement over the administration's mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives. (See prior posting.) Apparently the critical issue has become the White House's narrow definition of religious organizations that are exempt from the health care insurance mandate: non-profit religious employers whose primary purpose is the inculcation of religious values and which also both employ and serve only individuals who share the groups' religious tenets. The Bishops fear that this narrow definition-- which excludes most faith-based colleges,hospitals and social service organizations-- will spread in federal law and supplant more broadly interpreted exemptions for religious institutions in other federal laws. The White House says its definition for purposes of the Affordable Care Act minimum coverage provisions is not intended to create a precedent.

Government Issues First Ever Permit To Kill Bald Eagle For Religious Purposes

In what is seen as an important vindication of Native American religious freedom, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week issued a permit to allow the Northern Arapaho tribe to kill up to two bald eagles (without eggs or nestlings) this year for religious purposes.  AP reported yesterday that while the government has previously issued permits for tribes to kill golden eagles, this is the first time that a bald eagle permit has been issued.  The step came after the tribe last year brought suit over the government's failure to grant a permit application filed nearly three years ago. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668a) authorizes the Secretary of Interior to issue a permit for the taking of eagles for scientific or exhibition purposes, or for the religious purposes of Indian tribes, when that is compatible with preservation of the eagle population. The government's administration of the permit system under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was unsuccessfully challenged in a long-running prosecution of a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe who in 2005 killed a bald eagle so he could use it in his tribe's Sun Dance. (See prior posting.)

Cuban Government Launches Website For Pope's Upcoming Visit

Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to visit Cuba March 26-28.  God Discussion reports that the Cuban government has launched a new website devoted to the Pope's upcoming visit. The website, Benedicto XVI in Cuba, carries the schedule for the visit along with numerous background articles.

Roy Moore Wins Republican Nomination For Alabama Chief Justice

CNN reports that Alabama's former Supreme Court chief justice, Roy Moore, may get his old job back.  Moore won Tuesday's Republican primary in which the current chief justice, Chuck Malone, was challenged by two contenders-- Moore and former Alabama attorney general Charlie Graddick. Once final results were in late yesterday, it became clear that Moore had avoided a run-off election by capturing just over 50% of the entire vote. Moore is best known for his attempt ten years ago to keep his 2.5 ton Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building which housed the Supreme Court. In 2003, a state judicial ethics panel removed Moore from office when he defied a federal court order to take down the monument. According to an AP report in March, the major issue in the primary race was whether the Alabama state courts can withstand another round of budget cuts. Moore will face Democratic candidate Harry Lyon in the November election. WBRC reports that Moore, when asked if he would attempt to return the 10 Commandments to the Court, said:

We'll not return the Ten Commandments because it would be more about me or a monument about me. That's what I'm identified with, and I think it would be detrimental to the true issue. The true issue is whether we can acknowledge the sovereignty of almighty God over the affairs of our state and our law. That I will not back down from.

India Expels Chabad Rabbi To Israel

Haaretz reported that the Indian government on Tuesday expelled to Israel a Chabad rabbi who was serving the small ancient Jewish community in Cochin. The rabbi's wife was also expelled. The Indian government charged that Rabbi Zalman Bernstein did not declare on his visa application that he would be conducting religious activities and would be trying to convert foreigners. Local newspapers reported that the rabbi was holding unusual nighttime meetings at his home, suggested he was receiving outside support and said some thought he was spying for Israel. Rabbi Bernstein suggested that the expulsion order was pressed by owners of local hotels and restaurants who disliked the competition from Chabad offering Friday evening Shabbat dinner free of charge.

Washington Court Decision Allows Signature Collection In Anti-Gay Marriage Referendum

The Olympian reports that a Washington state court yesterday ruled on the language that should be used in a proposed referendum on the state's recently enacted same-sex marriage bill. (See prior posting.) The decision means that opponents of same-sex marriage can print petitions and begin to collect signatures.  They need almost 121,000 valid signatures by June 6 for the referendum to appear on this November's ballot. In its ruling, the court agreed with the ACLU's proposed language change in the ballot description of the measure.

South Dakota Governor Signs Law Barring Government Enforcement of Religious Codes

On Monday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard's office announced that the governor has signed House Bill 1253 (full text) which provides: "No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code." The ABA Journal says that the bill is aimed at Islamic law, but was worded neutrally to bolster the chances of surviving a constitutional challenge which civil rights advocates are planning to file.

Meanwhile, the Tampa Bay Times last week reported that an anti-Shariah bill (SB 1360) that passed the Florida House of Representatives died in the state Senate.

Nursing Home Settles Religious Accommodation Suit With EEOC

The EEOC announced yesterday that a consent decree has been entered in a religious discrimination lawsuit it filed against Menorah House, a Boca Raton, Florida nursing and rehabilitation facility.  The suit was filed on behalf of two Seventh Day Adventist nursing assistants who were fired after they refused to comply with management's new policy of requiring everyone to work on Saturdays.  The EEOC said that Menorah House had a duty to reasonably accommodate the nursing assistants' religious beliefs. In the settlement, Menorah House agreed to pay $125,000 in damages, revise its written policies and conduct anti-discrimination training for all employees.

Trial Begins In NASA Employee's Claim of Demotion Because of His Views On Intelligent Design

In a Los Angeles trial court yesterday, opening statements began in the high-profile lawsuit filed by former Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employee David Coppedge.  JPL operates under contract with NASA. Coppedge, a computer systems administrator, claims he was harassed and demoted for allegedly pressing his opinions favoring intelligent design and opposing gay marriage on co-workers and sharing with them DVDs promoting intelligent design. He says that subsequently he was fired for filing a religious discrimination lawsuit. According to the Los Angeles Daily News, JPL officials say that Coppedge's demotion did not affect his pay or benefits, and that his firing was part of a staff reduction. (See prior related posting.)

Victim Advocacy Group Gets Subpoenaed By Catholic Church

The New York Times today reports that in two Missouri clergy sex abuse cases, the Roman Catholic Church and lawyers for accused priests have subpoenaed the victim advocacy group Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), and taken a lengthy deposition from its national director, David Clohessy.  SNAP has been subpoenaed five times in recent months, even though it is not a party in the lawsuits. One of the subpoenas asks SNAP to turn over all documents in the last 23 years that mention repressed memory, any current or former priest in Kansas City, the diocese, the priest who is alleged to have abused the plaintiffs, the John Doe plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney.  According to the Times report:

... William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a church advocacy group in New York, said targeting the network was justified because “SNAP is a menace to the Catholic Church.”

Mr. Donohue said leading bishops he knew had resolved to fight back more aggressively against the group... He said bishops were also rethinking their approach of paying large settlements to groups of victims. “The church has been too quick to write a check, and I think they’ve realized it would be a lot less expensive in the long run if we fought them one by one,” Mr. Donohue said.

However, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, said Mr. Donohue was incorrect. “There is no national strategy,” she said, and there was no meeting where legal counsel for the bishops decided to get more aggressive.

Court Awards Attorneys Fees In Christian's Challenge To Dearborn Anti-Leafleting Ordinance

Last year, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held unconstitutional on free speech grounds Dearborn, Michigan's leafleting restrictions that barred a group of Christians from proselytizing on public sidewalks surrounding the city's annual Arab International Festival. (See prior posting.) On remand, the district court enjoined enforcement of the leafleting restrictions.  Now, in Saieg v. City of Dearborn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32062 (ED MI, March 9, 2012), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31705, Jan. 27, 2012) and ordered the city of Dearborn to also pay $1 in nominal damages and to pay plaintiffs $103,401.96 is attorneys' fees and costs.

Donor To Christian School May Remain Anonymous In RLUIPA Lawsuit

Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32205 (SD OH, March 12, 2012) is a lawsuit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act brought against the city of Upper Arlington, Ohio by a Christian school whose zoning application for a conditional use permit was denied.  The city sought in discovery to learn the name of an anonymous donor to the school who had pledged $6.5 million to purchase the property at issue. The city said it wanted to determine whether the donor was willing to contribute to purchase a different piece of land and whether the donor had the capacity to pay the portion of the pledged amount still outstanding. An Ohio federal magistrate judge agreed with plaintiff that disclosing the donor's name would violated plaintiff's 1st Amendment associational rights. It will impact both plaintiff's relationship with the donor and its ability in the future to attract contributions

British Government Reportedly Will Back Employers' Ban On Wearing Christian Cross

According to the London Telegraph last week, Christian groups in Britain are upset over the position that the government reportedly will take in a group of religious freedom cases pending in the European Court of Human Rights against Britain. Apparently in opposition to the position put forward by Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission (see prior posting), the government will argue that because it is not a "requirement" of the Christian religion, employers may ban employees from wearing a cross at work.

UPDATE: Despite the position of the Foreign Office is its official response in the case, the Telegraph (3/13) reports that if the European Court rules against the two women who wish to wear a cross at work, Prime Minister Cameron would consider changing the law to allow at least a discreet display of the religious symbol

Poll of Today's Likely Republican Primary Voters Shows Religious Attitudes

Public Policy Polling yesterday released the results of a poll of likely Republican voters in today's Alabama and Mississippi primaries. Certain of the questions revealed interesting insights into voters' religious beliefs and attitudes:

• Q16: Are you an Evangelical Christian, or not?  In Alabama, 68% yes.  In Mississippi, 70% yes.

• Q22 Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure? In Alabama, 14% think he is Christian, 45% think he is Muslim, 41% are not sure.  In Mississippi, 12% think he is Christian, 52% think he is Muslim, 36% are not sure.

• Q23 Do you believe in evolution, or not?  In Alabama, 26% do, 60% do not, 13% are not sure.  In Mississippi, 22% do, 66% do not, 11% are not sure.

• Q24 Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal? In Alabama, 67% say it should be legal, 21% say it should be illegal, 13% are not sure.  In Mississippi, 54% say it should be legal, 29% say it should be illegal, 17% are not sure.

Turkish Military Court Applies European Human Rights Precedents To Conscientious Objectors

A Turkish millitary court last week handed down an important decision on the rights of conscientious objectors.  Both Hurriyet Daily News and BIA News Agency report on the March 7 decision by the Malatya Military Court in the case of Muhammed Serdar Delice. While the court refused to recognize Delice as a conscientious objector-- finding that he deserted because of financial and psychological problems-- the court for the first time held that protections of the European Convention on Human Rights should be applied in conscientious objector cases. Pointing to the provisions of Art. 90 of the Turkish Constitution that provide that international agreements duly put into effect have the force of law, the Turkish court referred to last year's decision by the European Court of Human rights in Bayatyan v. Armenia holding that that Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects military conscientious objectors. (See prior posting.)