I appreciate Marci's support on my other point, but I'm afraid I don't agree that the views of American Catholics writ large is especially relevant. It's no secret that most Catholics, including ND students and faculty, disagree with ND's view, and with the Church's, on the morality of contraception and premarital sex. That's why this is a losing battle for ND in the long run. But I think there can be little doubt but that, as an institution, Notre Dame believes (and at least nominally instructs its students) that such things are indeed sinful.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > There is a doubt however about what American Catholics believe. They > overwhelmingly reject the church teaching against contraception. They > don't think they are sinners as Mark suggested. They reject it. > > Every poll supports that as does the fact that it is rare to find a > Catholic family w 10-20 children in the US. The teaching is one thing: the > belief is another in the US. This is not an idle observation. ND has > inserted itself into the spotlight by asserting beliefs that most Americans > know Catholics reject-in theory and in practice. > > On Marty's point--the fact that the government gives for-profits a pass > on abortion does not show they have a conscience. It shows religious > abortion opponents had political clout. Your reasoning strikes me as > backward. I think Marty and the SG are on the stronger ground here If > the Court finds they have > such rights, the slippery slope is perpendicular to the ground. > > Marci A. Hamilton > Verkuil Chair in Public Law > Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School > Yeshiva University > @Marci_Hamilton > > > > On Feb 16, 2014, at 3:45 PM, "Douglas Laycock" <dlayc...@virginia.edu> > wrote: > > No doubt the Board and senior administration speaks for Notre Dame. But on > faith and morals, they may (and may be expected to or required to) take > their guidance from the bishops. There is no doubt what the Church's > teaching is, and no doubt that teaching is sincere. What I said was that > Notre Dame's leadership may sincerely feel obliged to follow that teaching > in their official capacity as leaders of a Catholic institution, whatever > they may do in their private life. > > > > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] > *On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com > *Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:14 PM > *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > *Subject:* Re: Notre Dame-- where's the complicit "participation"? > Sincerity > > > > Is Doug correct as a legal matter that the bishops speak for Notre Dame, > as opposed to its officials, and the officials' actions are irrelevant? And > that the actions of its co-religionist officials are irrelevant to proof > of the organization's beliefs? Why don't the practices of Notre Dame's > officials prove insincerity in this case? (I'm assuming that they don't > have the 10-20 children > > typically incident to not using birth control and that they follow the > vast majority of American Catholics in rejecting the belief against > contraception). How can they claim > > a right not to provide contraception for their employees/students in their > health plan because of complicity if they are using it themselves? > > > > To provide an analogy: In the prison cases, you can test a prisoner's > sincerity when he demands kosher food (because it's better than the usual > fare), > > and claims a conversion to Judaism, but they find pork rinds in his cell, > it is assumed he is not sincere and does not receive the accommodation (a > state > > prison general counsel provided this example for me) > > > > Marci > > > > > > > > Marci A. Hamilton > Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law > Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law > Yeshiva University > 55 Fifth Avenue > New York, NY 10003 > (212) 790-0215 > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
