Here are some informative comments on the Supreme Court's decision on the ministerial exception case which would affect religious institutions and their hiring.
A summary from an earlier posting:
The third and final opinion for today was in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, which the Chief Justice announced for a unanimous Court. The Court reversed the decision of the Sixth Circuit. It held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws. Moreover, because the respondent in this case was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.
It's not clear that the Supreme Court could have ruled in any other way than it did. But it's unfortunate that churches and religious schools have such a capacity to behave in an un-Christlike manner when it comes to matters of employment. I've seen this many times throughout my life. I wish it were otherwise.
Posted by: Kyralessa | January 11, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Un-Christlike? He certainly spent much time ministering directly to those who fell far short of living lives of virtue. But He did so with the goal of bringing them back to the straight and narrow path to salvation (His words, not mine). On the other hand, He clearly expected that those he chose as disciples and apostles would live that sort of life, and chastised them when they fell short of it. The one who fell short and did not repent was a man whom He described as being indwelt by Satan.
Posted by: Deacon Michael D. Harmon | January 11, 2012 at 03:50 PM
"In June 2004, before the next term opened, she suddenly became ill and was hospitalized. She ultimately was diagnosed with narcolepsy, and took a leave for the following school year. In January 2005, she told the school she would be cleared to return to work in February. The school, however, decided that her health would not permit her return, and a replacement was hired to teach third and fourth grades. School officials then decided it would be best if she resigned. Ultimately, Perich and school leaders came into sharp conflict, when she threatened to sue, claiming that the refusal to retain her was based on her illness, and thus the school would be charged with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. When she tried to return to school, she was fired; she was told that she was let go because of her threat to sue, which violated a Lutheran religious tenet that members of the faith should resolve internally their disagreements."
Does suffering from narcolepsy constitute a failure to live a life of virtue?
Posted by: Kyralessa | January 11, 2012 at 04:15 PM
No, but agreeing to abide by a set of rules established by your employer (and the Bible) and then reneging on that commitment is hardly virtuous.
Posted by: Deacon Michael D. Harmon | January 11, 2012 at 05:46 PM