Washington D.C., Jan 22, 2020 / 04:05 pm (CNA).- States should not deny tax credit programs to families who choose religious private schools, said members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case addressing the issue of school choice.
“The case before the Supreme Court today concerns whether the Constitution offers states a license to discriminate against religion,” said Bishop George Murry of Youngstown, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, and Bishop Michael Barber of Oakland, head of the Committee on Catholic Education.
“Our country’s tradition of non-establishment of religion does not mean that governments can deny otherwise available benefits on the basis of religious status,” they said in a Jan. 22 statement.
“Indeed, religious persons and organizations should, like everyone else, be allowed to participate in government programs that are open to all. This is an issue of justice for people of all faith communities.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Kendra Espinoza, a mother of two daughters attending a Christian school in Kalispell, Montana, is the lead plaintiff in the case.
An 1889 amendment to the Montana state constitution, known as a Blaine Amendment, prohibits both direct and indirect state aid to religious institutions. The amendment was passed a second time when the state constitution was revised and rewritten in 1972.
The Montana Supreme Court originally decided the case 5-2 during late 2018.
That ruling found that the state’s tax credit program, which began in 2015 and provided for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for a person’s donation to nonprofit student scholarship organizations, was allowing the Montana legislature to “indirectly pay tuition at private, religiously-affiliated schools” in violation of state law.
The Supreme Court granted cert to the case June 28, 2019.
Montana is just one of 38 states with similar “no-aid” provisions in its constitution, NPR reports.
So-called Blaine Amendments have their roots in anti-Catholic sentiment of the late 19th century, according to historians and religious liberty advocates.
In the years following the Civil War, there was widespread suspicion and even open hostility toward Catholics in the U.S., especially toward immigrant Catholic populations from Europe.
Public schools at the time were largely Protestant, with no single Christian denomination in charge, and many Catholics attended parochial schools which were seen as “sectarian” by prominent public figures, historian John T. McGreevy explained in his book “Catholicism and American Freedom.”
Public figures, he notes, including one current and one future U.S. president at the time, pushed against taxpayer funding of Catholic schools and even advocated for an increase in the taxation of Catholic Church property in the U.S.
President Ulysses S. Grant pushed for a 1875 federal amendment by Sen. James Blaine of Maine that prohibited taxpayer funding of “sectarian” schools – the original “Blaine Amendment.” It failed in the Senate, but the federal amendment took form at the state level and many states eventually passed versions of the bill barring state funding of Catholic schools.
In the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision Mitchell v. Helms, a four-justice plurality insisted that the Blaine Amendment’s motive to deny public funding of “sectarian” institutions was bigoted, particularly against Catholics. The court ruled that a religious school could receive a federal grant under certain conditions.
In 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer that a church property couldn’t be barred from a state renovation program simply on account of its religious affiliation.
“This case [Espinoza] is not only about constitutional law. It is about whether our nation will continue to tolerate this strain of anti-Catholic bigotry,” the bishops continued.
“Blaine Amendments…were never meant to ensure government neutrality towards religion, but were expressions of hostility toward the Catholic Church. We hope that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to bring an end to this shameful legacy.”
The Second Vatican Council’s 1965 declaration on Christian education, Gravissimum educationis, said that parents “must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools.”
“Consequently, the public power, which has the obligation to protect and defend the rights of citizens, must see to it, in its concern for distributive justice, that public subsidies are paid out in such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children,” the document states.
President Donald Trump on Jan. 16 issued new rules for nine federal agencies. The rules seek to ensure that federal government social service programs are administered in line with the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, so that religious groups are not barred simply on account of their religious status.
The National Catholic Educational Association, which includes more than 150,000 educators serving 1.9 million Catholic school students across the U.S., is supportive of a proposed plan to create a federal tax credit-based scholarship program that could provide a boost for parents who want to send their children to Catholic school. The proposed scheme, which the U.S. Department of Education calls Education Freedom Scholarships, would be funded through taxpayers’ voluntary contributions to state-identified Scholarship Granting Organizations.
Should the proposal become law, donors will receive a federal tax credit equal to their contribution.
[…]
Sounds weird to say the least.
Probably diabolical in nature.
I wonder what awful thing this priest did to upset the students? The lack of detail makes it seem like it was pretty horrible. I hope the students really are safe.
More likely the students were doing something to the relic. I know Fr. Carlos. This is a witch hunt.
This CNA article is a perfect example of sensationalist journalism and is unworthy of CWR. The piece reports scandal, an “incident” but provides absolutely no detail. Add to that, an unsubstantiated name was dropped followed by the temerity of stating that “This is a developing story.”
The author would have done better to let it develop some more. This piece reminds of a sewing circle of breathless, gossiping busybodies.
Joseph Meynier: my sentiments exactly. I’ve thought for a long time that CNS is not a reliable source of news and ought to be considered with a very critical eye.
Sorry, I meant to say CNA.
Thank you. This is the first time I can remember being disappointed in something CWR published, but someone was a definitely a bit too eager.
I’m a bit puzzled by the responses here. It’s a straight-up news report. There is no sensationalism, no editorializing, no claims made. Just facts. This did happen and it is, as the CNA note states, a developing story.
What was printed was all the information that the diocese made available. It would have been so easy (and fair-minded) for them to have specified that the incident was not of a sexual nature. But they didn’t and now the priest’s reputation is harmed and Joliet Catholics are deprived of the chance to honor the relic.
Agreed. Lack of essential detail. Therefore,not newsworthy
I hope that when the details of the case are known, you will update this article, so we can know the exact nature of the allegations against the unnamed priest, and the identity of the individual.
The accusations are false against fr martins…thevtruthvwill come out…he is being attacked by Satan for his work exposing satan….beware of jumping to false conclusions….
I attended the display when it came through our parish. Nothing weird happened here. I really enjoyed it.
I would suggest, if it turns out that this priest did nothing illegal or immoral according to Church teaching and if his reputation was damaged by the action taken by the diocese of Joliet and its bishop, that he ought to then sue the latter for damages.
Relic priest responds to ‘incident’ allegation
THE PILLAR
November 25, 2024 . 2:51 PM 5 min read
Apparently, this priest is alleged to have handled the long hair of a girl attending the relic presentation in order to illustrate a point. Probably unwise but hardly an illegal “assault” as alleged nor a violation of morality. As a comparison, I’m sure we can all recall photos of Pope Francis in all sorts of fatherly embraces of young children yet no one lodges a single complaint about it.
Those were my thoughts too, Deacon Edward.
A recent update by the Pillar has more details as indicated earlier. As the saying goes someone seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill. In this case, a priest making note of his bald head and a girls hair to some students to engage them in a discussion. If the Pillar latest account holds true as of this writing, which I hope it is, then the person making a report to the police should be admonished and should publically issue an apology to the priest. Also think if the Pillar up date is true then I think the Father making a report to the police has his own issues leading to this situation. Think CWR should also do an update when final facts are known.
Grabbintg anyone’s hair for any reason, without their consent is certainly immoral.
And I would lock up Francis and throw away the key for hundreds of things he has done.
No idea how you can define this as immoral?
As usual, this is turning out to be a witch hunt brought on by a hyper-conscious parent and the regular group of ninnies that try to make every good priest a villain. Fr. Martins did nothing wrong. See the latest:
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/illinois-diocese-halts-st-jude-relic-tour-amid-incident-involving-priest-students
Waiting for the pastor of the church and the bishop of Joliet to restore Father Martins’ reputation.
Unfortunately, Daniel Payne left out significant details in his article about the allegations against Fr. Martins. In front of over 200 people, as
Fr. Martins joked about his baldness he touched a teen’s hair. The girl’s father complained of assault. This ridiculous act against Fr. Martins may be an example of how Satan attacks the highly faithful. Fr. Martins is a well-known exorcist. Remember how Fr. Pio was also attacked with false charges. In this case, numerous witnesses shared that nothing inappropriate happened.
After reading the additional information in the Pillar, I think this is all diabolical. Fr. Martins is an accomplished exorcist. The evil one hates him.
How devastating this must be for him. Yet, he’ll come through it.
And I agree the Bishop over reacted as did the parent.