By Kay Ebeling
Examiner
April 4, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1960-LA-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m4d4-Court-Order-re-Franciscan -pedophile-priest-files-and-Freedom-of-Religion-in-US-and-CA
Defendant Franciscan Friars argues that the documents, specifically the laicization files, are protected from production and publication pursuant to the Free Exercise Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. Defendant contends the laicization filed “del with both the procedures and substance of laicization process, under which a priest may be released from his vows. Franciscans argue that laicization is thus undeniably religious in character even if some of the information contained in the files relates to the allegations of sexual abuse.
 |
| Cartoon found at Google Images |
(Direct Quotes from Judge Peter Lichtman April 2nd ruling re Franciscan Friars Release of Confidential and Personnel Files:)
Defendants argue that compelled release of the files would burden its constitutional rights. Plaintiffs on the other hand argue the Free Exercise Clauses of the California and United States Constitutions do not bar production and publication of laicization files.
Specifically Plaintiffs contend that defendant Franciscan Friars are bound by law to produce and have agreed to the production of documents pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act, and the release of the files is justified by a compelling state interest (i.e. preventing childhood sexual abuse).
Plaintiffs argue the Civil Discovery Act does not have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and does not result in any excessive entanglement with religion.
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION
The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state. The second, the Free exercise Clause, requires government respect for, and noninterference with, the religious beliefs and practices of our Nation’s people. The First Amendment safeguards the free exercise of a chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is an absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of Society.
(The Above two arguments have both been agreed to all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles.)
Judge Lichtman’s Order Continued:
In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise of religion a law need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest, even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.
California’s Civil Discovery Act is a law that is valid, neutral and of general applicability. Therefore Defendant Franciscan Friars cannot invoke the Free Exercise Clause to avoid production of the alleged perpetrators’ laicization files. By executing the Settlement Agreement (2006, Plaintiffs vs Franciscans of Santa Barbara), the parties agreed that California’s Civil Discovery Act would determine whether certain documents would be produced by Defendant Franciscan Friars, specifically documents that “have been or would have been subject to discovery obligations in litigation of THE ACTIONS.” Also, the settlement agreement provides that California law would govern interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
The California Constitution provides as follows: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference is guaranteed. A law cannot be applied in a manner that substantially burdened a religious belief or practice unless the state showed that the law was narrowly tailored. A law substantially burdens a religious belief if it conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denied such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”
Protecting children from sexual abuse is more important in California than protecting the reputation of a sick religious practice that produces inordinately large numbers of predator pedophiles.
Defendant Franciscan Friars cannot invoke the Free Exercise Clause of the California Constitution to avoid production of the perpetrators’ laicization files, even if the strict scrutiny standard is applied. Even assuming the law substantially burdens a religious belief or practice, the law serves compelling state interests and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.
California Civil Discovery Act serves several compelling state interests, including seeking the truth in Court proceedings, “ensuring those injured by the actional conduct of other receive full redress” of the injuries, and , and most importantly in this case, protecting children from sexual abuse.
*****************
SO:
Protecting children from sexual abuse is more important in California than protecting the reputation of a sick religious practice that produces inordinately large numbers of predator pedophiles.
The public needs to know.
After all appeals have been exhausted these documents will likely be released at the website of Nye Peabody Stirling & Hale in Santa Barbara, “hundreds and hundreds of pages of personnel files.”
Next story on this topic will include a short phone interview I had with Tim Hale this afternoon. But For now, tomorrow is Thai New Year’s which means the traffic in my neighborhood will keep me from going anyplace else.
Watch tomorrow here for pictures and videos from the Thai New Year’s Festival in Hollywood California April 5, 2009.
Read quotes from Court Order re Privacy Rights
If you're bored tonight do the same research I'm going to do by reading the St. Anthony Seminary Report from 1993:
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.