Latest news with #Becket
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Judge blocks Washington State law requiring Catholic priests to report abuse, even if disclosed in confession
WASHINGTON — A federal judge blocked Washington State Friday from enforcing a law that would require Catholic priests to report child abuse — even when disclosed in a confessional — or face nearly a year of jail time. Tacoma US District Chief Judge David G. Estudillo stayed the law that threatened clergy with a $5,000 fine and up to 364 days in prison for not disclosing child abuse and neglect heard during confessions. The legislation, SB 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson in May and would have taken effect July 27. In 25-page order, Estudillo — appointed to the federal bench by former President Joe Biden — determined the law was likely unconstitutional and violated First Amendment protections allowing for the free exercise of religion. 'The State arguably could have chosen a less restrictive means of advancing its interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect by adding members of the clergy to the list of mandated reporters while also permitting a narrow exception for the confessional, as approximately 25 other states have done,' he wrote. 3 A federal judge blocked Washington State on Friday from enforcing a law that would require Catholic priests to report child abuse — even when disclosed in a confessional — or face nearly a year of jail time. Emanuele Capoferri – 'Ultimately, Washington's failure to demonstrate why it has an interest of the highest order in denying an exemption to clergy while making such exemptions available to other professionals who work with underserved children … is likely fatal to SB 5375.' The Catholic Church views confession as among the holiest of activities and instructs priests to uphold their sacred obligation by keeping such disclosures confidential — on pain of excommunication. 'This ruling confirms what has always been true: In America, government officials have no business prying into the confessional,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of the religious freedom legal nonprofit Becket, which represented the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle. 3 The legislation, SB 5375, was signed by Washington State Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson in May and would have taken effect July 27. AP 'By protecting the seal of confession, the court has also safeguarded the basic principle that people of all faiths should be free to practice their beliefs without government interference.' Archbishop Paul D. Etienne, Bishop Joseph J. Tyson and Bishop Thomas A. Daly sued Ferguson May 29 and were represented by Becket, the First Liberty Institute and lawyers for WilmerHale. The US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division sought to intervene in that lawsuit on the side of the diocese June 23. 3 The Catholic Church views confession as among the holiest of activities in the life of a believer and instructs priests to uphold their sacred obligation by keeping everything confidential — or face excommunication from the religious body. UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images 'Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,' Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said at the time. 'The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion.' 'We look forward to protecting Washington kids from sexual abuse in the face of this 'investigation' from the Trump administration,' Ferguson responded to local outlet KIRO 7 at the time.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Real Reason the Supreme Court Defines Anti-LGBTQ+ Beliefs as Religious
After Mahmoud v. Taylor, the latest in a string of court cases offering substantial protections for certain people's free exercise of religion, many questions remain. Among them is this one: What can religious beliefs be about? In Mahmoud, a multireligious coalition of families, with a named claimant who is Muslim, won the right to exempt their children from public school materials that include LGBTQ+ content. The group argued, and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed, that five storybooks advanced moral lessons that posed a 'very real threat of undermining' the parents' sincere religious beliefs and thus interfered with their right to 'direct the religious upbringing of their children.' Opponents, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, have argued that the decision gives license to religious believers to contest any material they find objectionable. Conservatives claim that the slope is not so slippery, that it won't be a free-for-all. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court and quoting the 1972 case Wisconsin v. Yoder, explained that for students to opt out, the material must be presented in a way that is 'hostile' to their religious beliefs and imposes a 'pressure to conform.' Lawyer and author Asma Uddin asserted that the ruling is a 'narrow holding' that addresses 'a specific kind of burden, not every discomfort or value clash.' Which beliefs count, then? It is no coincidence that the sentiments in this case are about sex and gender. For many Americans, including judges, it is obvious that such a (conservative) belief would be religious. This leads us to two types of counterexamples: Can more-progressive beliefs about sex and gender be recognizably religious? And can conservative or right-wing beliefs about other topics, such as race, also be religious? Some progressive or liberal believers have won free exercise cases in recent years. In Indiana, a multireligious group of women, not unlike the parents in Mahmoud, contested the state's abortion ban. They successfully argued that the ban burdened their consciences and violated their religious freedom. Becket, the legal organization that represented the parents in Mahmoud, argued against these women, alleging that their beliefs were not religious but in fact political. The Indiana women won, as the state court found that the abortion ban did violate their religious consciences and burden their religious exercise. Nevertheless, that Becket (whose slogan is 'Religious Liberty for All') was on either side of these two cases, siding with religious freedom claimants in one and against them in the other, shows how progressive religious beliefs often face more scrutiny. The religiosity of anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs, conversely, is taken for granted. Alito quoted one school board member who, amid the conflict that led to the Mahmoud case, compared these parents to 'white supremacists' or 'xenophobes.' The justice doesn't provide enough text for us to determine whether the member was actually equating these beliefs to white supremacy or xenophobia (although why shouldn't they?). Alito seems to include this statement as evidence of animus by some board members to these parents—and also to signal that he might understand that racism and anti-LGBTQ+ positions are qualitatively different. In doing so, he raises the question of how such beliefs would be handled. It recalls his dissent in Obergefell, 10 years ago, lamenting that the legalization of same-sex marriage would 'be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.' Religious freedom has become a way not to assent, but from which 'new orthodoxies' will students be exempt? Under Mahmoud, there is no clear reason why parents would be unable to opt out of students' exposure to any viewpoint with which they disagree, even if the normative implications are 'subtle.' Likewise, there is no reason to assume that anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs are religious but racist beliefs or that pro-LGBTQ+ beliefs are not. This is a blinkered and shallow understanding of religion that crumbles under historical or sociological scrutiny. Another key point of disagreement between the majority and the dissent is whether these books 'merely expose' students to the existence of LGBTQ+ people or actively promote a certain moral stance. What neither fully acknowledges, though, is that complete neutrality, in which no values are learned, is neither possible nor desirable. There can be more of a facade of neutrality if a scrutinized text merely presents society as a multicultural melting pot than if it offers an explicit view of the state's position on morality. Sotomayor takes the pluralistic, melting-pot approach to neutrality, writing that public schools 'offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.' Those differences, as she sees it, quoting the 1987 court, make public schools 'at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.' While this approach is laudable, its problem is that some parents' 'faiths and backgrounds' seek to annihilate some others. Many conservative religious people, especially white evangelicals, believe that they face persecution and discrimination through inclusion. However, LGBTQ+ people's existence, including children's, is actually under attack. As is public education generally. Alito argues that Uncle Bobby's Wedding, one of the five books considered in the case, 'presents a specific, if subtle, message about marriage. It asserts that two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' ' As Sotomayor says, if we can opt out of even 'subtle' messages, chaos will reign and student learning will suffer as book after book is carted off due to individual complaints. It matters, as Justice Clarence Thomas notes in his concurrence (for different reasons), that the case is about classroom books, not sex education. Children's literature is generally not a subtle genre. Didacticism often subsumes narrative, with popular titles including Hands Are Not for Hitting and Everyone Poops. Although these may seem to be less controversial statements than one conveying that everyone should be able to marry someone they love, Sotomayor is right; allowing all sorts of exemptions will make teaching much more difficult because schools and children's books are full of lessons that parents might object to, for whatever reason. But this case was not about just any reason. It was about sex and gender, which brings us back to this question: Why, in the court's view, are conservative approaches to sex and gender so obviously religious? And what else is religion about? Even with a Muslim claimant, this assumption seems to reflect the Christian right's decades of mobilizing around sex and gender issues. At the end of this Supreme Court term, the intersections of religion, schools, and parents are tangled and confusing. The justices nearly allowed for the creation of the nation's first explicitly religious public charter school. Parents can opt out of public school instruction that interferes with their child's religious upbringing. At the same time, parents cannot opt into gender-affirming care for their own children. Other observers have pointed out the seeming contradictions between Skrmetti and Mahmoud: Parents can shield their children from books about gay people, but they can't make medical decisions for them. What, exactly, is the scope of 'parental rights' now? And how do parental rights relate to religious freedom in the right to 'direct' children's religious upbringing? Let's conclude with two thought experiments. First, what might it look like to contest Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care, the same one the court upheld in Skrmetti, with a religious freedom argument citing Mahmoud? Could a religious parent in Tennessee not argue that the state's ban on gender-affirming care interferes with their child's religious upbringing? If they believe, sincerely and religiously, that trans expression is sacred or that God has made their child trans, then banning their gender-affirming health care undoubtedly poses 'a very real threat of undermining' their religious beliefs. Such a case's chances of success would depend, at least in part, on whether courts could recognize those beliefs as authentically religious. Second, instead of progressive religious views about gender, what about other conservative religious views? What would happen if, for example, the parents in Mahmoud took issue with the fact that Uncle Bobby's Wedding appears to portray an interracial wedding? Or imagine a slightly different book, with a white Uncle Bobby marrying a Black woman, or a Muslim Uncle Bobby marrying a Jewish woman. Would the case's outcome be different? Conservative beliefs about sex and gender are legible as religious largely because of the Christian right's decades of organizing and the prominence of its campaigns against the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people. Its particularities have been taken as generic 'religion.' If judges fail to recognize the religiosity of other beliefs about sex and gender—or of conservative beliefs about other topics—it is the result of these campaigns, not because these judges understand American religions as they are actually lived, practiced, and believed.
UPI
24-06-2025
- Politics
- UPI
DOJ sues Wash. over law mandating priests to report child abuse
June 23 (UPI) -- The Trump administration filed a lawsuit Monday in support of a challenge to a new Washington State law mandating clergy to report child abuse, describing the rule as "anti-Catholic" and a violation of the Constitution. Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Catholic, signed Senate Bill 5375 into law early last month. The new law, which goes into effect July 27, adds clergy members -- including priests, ministers, rabbi and imam, among others -- to the list of people required to report child abuse or neglect to the state or law enforcement under threat of being charged with a gross misdemeanor offense. The law has received pushback from local Catholics, who have characterized it as forcing them to break the sacred seal of confession in order to avoid prison. In the Justice Department's lawsuit, federal prosecutors argue the new law puts Catholic priests at odds with the core tenets and beliefs of their religion and violates their First Amendment right to the freedom of religion "by forcing them to violate the sanctity and confidentiality of confessional communications. "No other mandatory reporter is required to forego his or her fundamental rights under the Constitution in this manner," the lawsuit states, while adding that the law will have a "chilling effect" on thousands of Catholic priests and parishioners who may be uncertain about whether adhering to the sacrament of penance will open them to criminal penalties, child welfare investigations, civil liability or excommunication. "Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society," Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights division said in a statement. "Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges." The lawsuit is an intervention in a complaint filed early this month by Washington State Catholic bishops, who argue it discriminates against them as attorneys are exempt from inclusion as mandatory reporters. "Washington State has no business intruding into the confessional -- particularly when they give a free pass to lawyers who have legally protected confidential relationships with clients," Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, a non-profit public interest religious liberty group that is representing the bishops, said in a statement. "Punishing priests for following the Catholic Church's millennia-old faith traditions isn't just wrong, it's unconstitutional." The governor told KUOW in a statement that he wasn't surprised by the Department of Justice's intervention. "It's disappointing, but not surprising, to see the DOJ seek to shield and protect child abusers."
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Seminary schoolmate reflects on Pope Leo's humble beginnings at St. Augustine Seminary High School
Few people have known Pope Leo for as long as those who attended St. Augustine Seminary High School with him. Seminary schoolmate Father Thomas Becket Franks saw the signs that Robert Prevost was special more than five decades ago. Walking in to the St. Procopious Abbey in Lisle, Illinois, Father Thomas 'Becket' Franks is – in some ways – walking down memory lane. Sifting through his yearbooks from St. Augustine Seminary High School in Holland, Michigan, he has found photos of his most famous schoolmate: Robert Prevost, the man who would become Pope Leo XIV. 'Probably the most humble person I've ever met and yet at the same time, the most helpful person,' he said. Father Becket, as he's known in the abbey, was a sophomore when Prevost arrived in the St. Augustine dorms as a freshman in the fall of 1969. Special Coverage: Pope Leo 'We were away from family, away from neighborhood friends,' he said. 'Bob, as I still refer to him, was quiet but involved in everything.' Prevost was a member of the student government, debate team, tennis team and patriotism club – a group that discussed U.S. politics, government and the nation's role in current events. 'When you spoke with him or talked to him, he listened intently. He would look right at you, and listen intently,' Father Becket said. 'What he was doing was formulating a response, or how to respond to you. It was never flippant, nothing really quick. He was never 'off the cuff.' Even in discussions you knew what he was saying he had been thinking about for a while.' Prevost was a member of the Reader's Theatre. Each year, each class at St. Augustine would write a comedic play spoofing life at the seminary. Pope Leo's singing sparks global social media campaign to unite believers 'He liked to portray Father Jim Sheridan. Now, at the time and as a high school kid, Bob had a lot of hair, a lot of hair. I think even curly, or wavy I should say. But Father Jim Sheridan was bald. So, as part of that portrayal of Jim Sheridan, Bob would put a hat on and made his mutton chops on his face, because Father Jim Sheridan had big sideburns,' Father Becket said. Pervost's outfit predated the Blues Brothers, but he was clearly 'on a mission from God.' Father Becket said one of Prevost's favorite activities was singing and the school chorus. 'He's a great singer,' he said. 'You can hear it now when he chants at mass.' More: Augustinian order's principles reflected in Pope Leo's life At the villa at St. Benedict Senior Living Community, Father Becket serves as chaplain. He celebrated mass in the century-old Sacred Heart Chapel, where he now quotes his own classmate. 'Everyday I've been adding some words from Pope Leo … so basically every day is a little teaching from someone I know and went to high school with,' he said. He has known Pope Leo for 56 years. The two still correspond. They'll always be connected by their shared experience at the seminary and in the pages of these yearbooks, which he signed with the same clarity and warmth that defines his priesthood: 'Tom, best of luck always, Bob Prevost.' 'I look back now 50-some years on and I see the beginnings of holiness and great maturity. A great thinker and a great gift to the world,' Father Becket said. 'I think he learned the way of holiness. I think we're going to encounter an extremely holy person, and every time I look at him now, I'm thinking I can see the beginnings of a saint way back in high school.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court refuses Apache plea to save Oak Flat from copper mining destruction
Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold talks to a crowd of people outside the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse on May 7, 2025, as Apache Stronghold urged the federal court to save Oak Flat. Photo Courtesy of Becket The U.S. Supreme Court denied a review of Apache Stronghold's case aimed at blocking the U.S. government's transfer of Oak Flat to a copper mining company, whose mine will transform the sacred site into a massive crater. The decision comes after Apache Stronghold initially asked the U.S. District Court in Phoenix on May 7 to temporarily block the Trump administration from pushing ahead with the land swap that would hand over Oak Flat to Resolution Copper. The Trump administration plans to reissue a final environmental impact statement regarding Oak Flat and transfer the land to Resolution Copper as early as June 16, according to court documents. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX An Arizona federal judge granted a temporary injunction on May 9, delaying the land transfer as the case awaited review by the Supreme Court. Apache Stronghold v. United States has been awaiting a hearing in the Supreme Court since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that the land transfer is not subject to federal laws protecting religious freedom. The Supreme Court's decision on May 27 removes any obstacles to halting the land transfer from occurring. 'Apache Stronghold asks us to review the Ninth Circuit's extraordinary conclusion,' the dissent states. 'But the Court today turns aside the group's request.' Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote in the dissenting opinion that the court's decision is a 'grave mistake' because the case meets all of the standards the court typically applies when evaluating petitions for review. 'Before allowing the government to destroy the Apaches' sacred site, this Court should at least have troubled itself to hear their case,' Gorsuch wrote. He added that, while the court 'enjoys the power to choose' which cases they will hear, the decision to shuffle this case off their docket is a mistake and 'one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations.' Gorsuch said that he has no doubt the court would find the case worth its time. 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' he wrote. 'They may live far from Washington, D. C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Becket, a nonprofit institution that advocates for freedom of religion that is representing Apache Stronghold, said that the Supreme Court's action means Oak Flat will be destroyed by a Chinese-owned mining giant. But, the group said, they will continue to fight in court to stop the government from transferring Oak Flat to Resolution Copper. 'We will never stop fighting—nothing will deter us from protecting Oak Flat from destruction,' Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold said in a press release. 'While this decision is a heavy blow, our struggle is far from over,' he added. 'We urge Congress to take decisive action to stop this injustice while we press forward in the courts.' Resolution Copper General Manager Vickey Peacey said they are pleased at the ruling because the Resolution Copper mine is 'vital to securing America's energy future, infrastructure needs, and national defense with a domestic supply of copper and other critical minerals.' 'We are encouraged by the significant community support for the project,' she said, because the mine has the potential to become 'one of the largest copper mines in America.' Peacey said Resolution Copper has had more than a decade of 'extensive consultation and collaboration' with Native American tribes and local communities, which has resulted in changes to their mining plan with the hope of preserving and reducing potential impacts. The courtroom battle for Oak Flat, or Chi'chil Biłdagoteel as the Apache people know it, has been ongoing since 2021, with the grassroots group Apache Stronghold leading the effort. Since time immemorial, Western Apaches and other Indigenous peoples in the Southwest have gathered at Oak Flat, near Superior, for sacred religious ceremonies that cannot occur anywhere else. Oak Flat is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a Western Apache Traditional Cultural Property and National Historic District. Oak Flat has been protected from mining and other harmful practices for decades, according to Becket. However, those protections faced challenges in December 2014 when a last-minute provision was inserted into a must-pass defense bill, authorizing the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper. Resolution Copper plans to turn the sacred site into a two-mile-wide and 1,100-foot-deep crater. 'It is hard to imagine a more brazen attack on faith than blasting the birthplace of Apache religion into a gaping crater,' Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said in a written statement. 'The Court's refusal to halt the destruction is a tragic departure from its strong record of defending religious freedom,' Goodrich said. 'We will do everything in our power to ensure that the Apaches can continue worshiping at Oak Flat as they have for generations.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
