Saint Stanislaus Kostka Church in St. Louis
Hi all, Some years ago, Saint Stanislaus Kostka Church, a Roman Catholic parish church in St. Louis, got into a dispute with the Catholic bishop in St. Louis. the Bishop tried to assert his authority over Saint Stanislaus, and when the folks running the church refused, the declared them to be in schism. The fight ended up in the courts. Saint Stanislaus, however, had an advantage that virtually no other Catholic parish has -- (secular) title to its own property, a vestige of a once-common 19th century form of organization for Catholic churches. Last March, a trial judge in St. Louis ruled, remarkably, against the Bishop and in favor of the local parish. The two sides have now settled: Saint Stanislaus keeps its building and assets, but agrees not to represent itself as affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. See http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/st-louis-archdiocese-gives-fight-control-breakaway-parish Does anyone on this list happen to have a copy of the original March 2012 opinion (apparently in the neighborhood of 50 pages long) by Judge Hettenbach? I assume he relied on a neutral principles of law analysis, but I'd love to see the actual opinion. It doesn't seem to be available on either Lexis or Westlaw, and as best as I can tell the Missouri judicial web sites only post appellate opinions. Feel free to reply privately. And apologies if this has been discussed previously on the list. Thanks. Perry ___ 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.
Christian groups on secular campuses
I was reading an article about another Christian group, this time at Michigan, being forced off campus because their constitution requires the leadership to be Christian. I was thinking about it and I was wondering if this would be a workaround that would withstand the anti-discrimination charge. Suppose a group has a mission statement that states the groups mission to be to advance the gosepel or something of that nature. The constitution could simply require leaders to state that they affirm and support the mission of the group. They wouldn't be barring non-Christians from leadership. They would simply need to know that the non-Christian would affirm a Christian evangelical mission. (This would also work for other groups. For instance, Campus Republicans could have a mission statement to support and elect Republican candidates. They wouldn't be banning Democrats from running for leadership position. The Democrat would simply need to make the case that they support the mission of electing Republican candidates.) In order to prevent this, the campus administrators would then be required to say that campus organizations are not allowed to have an evangelical mission, which would be more difficult to defend than an across-the-board anti-discrimination requirement. Would that be an approach that groups like Intervarsity, etc., could take that would likely pass muster? The article about Intervarsity at Michigan is at http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/university-of-michigan-kick s-christian-club-off-campus.html Brad Pardee ___ 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.
RE: Christian groups on secular campuses
My understanding is that the University later recognized the group as a student organization: http://www.michigandaily.com/news/intervarsity-reinstated-university-club From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brad Pardee [bp51...@windstream.net] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:40 PM To: ReligionLaw Subject: Christian groups on secular campuses I was reading an article about another Christian group, this time at Michigan, being forced off campus because their constitution requires the leadership to be Christian. I was thinking about it and I was wondering if this would be a workaround that would withstand the anti-discrimination charge. Suppose a group has a mission statement that states the groups mission to be to advance the gosepel or something of that nature. The constitution could simply require leaders to state that they affirm and support the mission of the group. They wouldn’t be barring non-Christians from leadership. They would simply need to know that the non-Christian would affirm a Christian evangelical mission. (This would also work for other groups. For instance, Campus Republicans could have a mission statement to support and elect Republican candidates. They wouldn’t be banning Democrats from running for leadership position. The Democrat would simply need to make the case that they support the mission of electing Republican candidates.) In order to prevent this, the campus administrators would then be required to say that campus organizations are not allowed to have an evangelical mission, which would be more difficult to defend than an across-the-board anti-discrimination requirement. Would that be an approach that groups like Intervarsity, etc., could take that would likely pass muster? The article about Intervarsity at Michigan is at http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/university-of-michigan-kicks-christian-club-off-campus.html Brad Pardee ___ 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.
