Christine M. Flowers: A Supreme free-exercise triumph

LET'S SAY you teach religion at one of the schools on the archdiocesan chopping block.

Let's say you're so depressed about the mass closures that you slam your hand through a wall, right beneath the crucifix.

Let's say you break all five of your metacarpals, and can't manage to hold an eraser, correct homework or thwack someone over the knuckles with a ruler for a good six months.

Let's say that the Archdiocese not only sends you a bill for the hole in the wall and the dented crucifix, but tells you you're no longer welcome at St. Soon-To-Be-History.

Let's say that you're angry, and sue the church under the Americans With Disabilities Act, claiming workplace discrimination.

As of last week, you don't have a prayer. In court, that is.

That's because the Supreme Court, in one of its increasingly rare unanimous decisions, ruled last Wednesday that religious workers cannot sue their employers for discrimination under the ADA.

All of us who think that religious freedom is a fundamental human right should be grateful. Finally, conservatives and liberals alike can come to an agreement that the way we worship is sacred, private and not subject to government control. To be sure, some won't be thrilled with the decision. A lot of people believe that religions are much more likely to discriminate (against gays, against women) than be the target of discrimination themselves. Establishment-clause absolutists think that the wall between church and state should be as long and as high as the Great Wall of China.

Well, a crack just opened up.

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, an employee of the Redford, Mich., church was diagnosed with narcolepsy, took a leave of absence, tried to come back to her job and was told, "Bless you, but no." She was a "called teacher," an ordained woman who was for all intents and purposes a minister. Hosanna-Tabor objected to the fact that she was threatening to sue, in violation of church principles. So, she did what any upstanding citizen with a copy of the Bill of Rights would do: She sued.

The lower court threw out her case on the grounds that a "ministerial exception" to the Civil Rights Act prevented the government from interfering in church affairs. But Cheryl Perich was undaunted. She appealed, and the 6th Circuit held that since the woman spent most of her time teaching secular subjects, the exception shouldn't apply to her.

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that forcing Hosanna-Tabor to rehire her would essentially be telling it how to run its ministry:

"Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving it of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs . . . By imposing an unwanted minister the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

That's about as clear an expression of free exercise as you'll get from the Robed Ones.

I asked Barry Morrison, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, for his take on the subject. The League is well-known for defending civil and religious rights, and I wondered what it would have to say about this triumph for free exercise. Although his takeaway is a bit different from mine, we both celebrate the decision:

"We are gratified that the court articulated a view of the ministerial exception consistent with what we recommended in our amicus brief. The burden of showing that an employee is not entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws is now rightfully on the religious institution."

Happily, that burden is bearable.

A few months ago, we had a situation in Philadelphia in which a gay priest was employed at Chestnut Hill College, a Catholic institution. The school discontinued his contract when it learned that he had talked openly about being in a long-term sexual relationship because (spoiler alert, here) the Catholic Church opposes both homosexuality and married priests.

And you all know what happened next. Father became the darling of the local press. Articles were written about how horrible it was for the school to essentially fire a good man based upon his sexual orientation.

Few seemed willing to admit that the school and the Archdiocese had the right to fire employees who violated the principles of the Roman Catholic ministry. That's not discrimination. That's maintaining the integrity of the faith.

Things do get murky when money is involved. As Catholic Charities of Illinois found out, the state can put you out of the adoption business if it thinks that you're discriminating with public funds. But the Supreme Court reminded us last week that unless a church can decide who personifies its fundamental principles, the First Amendment means nothing.

And that would be a sin.