Judge denies Catholic diocese's injunction request

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Roman Catholic organizations in Wyoming aren’t entitled to a court order blocking provisions of the federal Affordable Care Act that require hundreds of non-ministerial employees to get health insurance coverage for contraception and abortion services, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Judge Scott Skavdahl, of Casper, denied a request from the Diocese of Cheyenne, which covers all of Wyoming, Catholic schools and other groups for an injunction against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Click to expand...
The plaintiffs had asked Skavdahl to block access to contraception and abortion services insurance coverage while their lawsuit challenging the health law runs its course. The challenge is one of several playing out in federal courts nationwide.
Click to expand...
trib.com/news/state-and-regional/judge-denies-catholic-diocese-s-injunction-request/article_bae0b074-d93c-56a6-bf44-db531388ee23.html
 
Sounds like a ready made appeal based on 1st Amendment religious freedoms.
 
This is only the beginning folks, now we will see how many local parishes advise their members to break this law and not take part in it…hopefully all of them, I have no sympathy for churches that suggest people follow mans law over Gods law…what happens when something much more serious comes along…will the church cave and end up abiding by fed or local laws, suggest their members to do the same…I wonder?
 
guiltyofdoubt said:
Sounds like a ready made appeal based on 1st Amendment religious freedoms.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid not. Historically, Supreme Court decisions on “religious freedom” usually have been to limit it. The Missouri Constitution of 1865 required that teachers, doctors, lawyers, and preachers had to swear to a loyalty oath before they could teach, see patients, appear in court, or preach sermons and officiate marriages. Part of the oath required swearing that you had never helped or supported any rebel in the recent rebellion. That meant that priests had to swear that they had never heard the confession of a Confederate soldier, or given them the Holy Eucharist, or even provided them food or medical assistance. The Most Rev. Peter Richard Kenrick, Archbishop of St. Louis (which covered the entire state of Missouri at the time) ordered all the priests to refuse to take the oath.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, Rev. John A. Cummings was charged by a grand jury with offering a Mass and preaching a sermon without having taken the test oath. He was arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. The bishop arranged for his appeal to be heard by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Court, being made up of men who had taken the oath, found the oath constitutional. Soon, dozens of priests and 8 nuns were charged and arrested for violating the test oath. (Actually, only 2 of the nuns were arrested – the others had fled to neighboring states.) Bishop Hogan, of the diocese of Kansas City, Missouri, appeared before the court dressed to the nines: in soutane, surplice, stole, and biretta, carrying in his right hand a crucifix, and in his left a large Bible.

Finally, in 1866, the US Supreme Court heard the case. You’d think it would be a slam dunk for religious freedom, but no. Because doctors, lawyers, and “persons of trust” were all affected, the lawyers argued that the test oath violated both Sections 9 and 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution, which prohibits “bills of attainder.” This is a law or legislative act that declares someone guilty and punishes them without a judicial hearing. The punishment usually involves taking away your livelihood (like prohibiting you from practicing medicine or law) and sometimes prohibits you from passing property to your heirs.

The ruling was passed down on 14 January 1867 that the test oath was unconstitutional and declared void.

The ruling passed by a 1 vote majority. It was NOT a victory for “religious freedom”.
 
I agree. The Church is about to face very tough times in the US and the rest of the secular world. God help us.
 
At some point we will see a definitive ruling from SCOTUS on this issue. There are as many different rulings on these injunctions as their are judges who hear the cases. Not to mention the various rulings on the cases themselves.

Exactly how SCOTUS will rule is anyone’s guess. As has been pointed out, they don’t have a great track record for supporting religious freedom for Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top