Court says Notre Dame may have to pay back education grant used for religious training

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 4

Meeting with a group of disadvantaged young people of the rehabilitation community of the University of Notre Dame in the Church of the Sacred Heart in Sydney
Vespers Address to Priests, Seminarians, and Deacons at Notre Dame
Why the Government Should Care About Pornography
If abortion is made illegal women will die in back alleys

South Bend, Ind., Apr 20, 2006 / 12:00 am (CNA).- The University of Notre Dame could be required to pay back a government grant used to train teachers in Catholic schools if a judge rules that the use of the funds was unconstitutional, reported the Associated Press.

That was the 2-1 ruling issued in Laskowski v. Spellings by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, April 13. The judges ruled that Indianapolis federal Judge Larry McKinney acted prematurely when he dismissed the case as moot because the $500,000 Department of Education grant had already been spent.

Notre Dame received the money to redistribute to other colleges to help them replicate a program that trains teachers who then teach in impoverished Catholic schools. Private donations also fund the program.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, on behalf of taxpayers. They argued that government had no business paying for religious education, reported the AP.

The ACLU wanted the court to order the Education Department to demand repayment. While Circuit Judge Richard Posner disagreed, he said it should not prevent restitution if a constitutional violation of the edict on the separation of church and state were found.

However, the 7th Circuit did not address whether using public money for the teacher-training program violated the constitution.

The attorney who represented Notre Dame, Michael Carvin, told the AP that the university handled the program in line with previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

He said he agreed with Circuit Judge Diane Sykes' 13-page dissent, in which she says the case was moot and the two-judge majority kept it alive by inventing a "newfangled" remedy inconsistent with previous rulings.

The university may decide to appeal the decision.

Comments: 4

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Joe
Seattle, WA, USA 04/21/2006 07:33 AM EST

Is "separation of church and state" actually in the Constitution?

I don't believe it is. What the Constitution guards against is the establishment of a mandatory state religion, as was done before our country was founded in England with the Church of England.

The American idea was that we would practice our religion unfettered.

If anybody is subverting the Constitution, it is the ACLU.

Published by: phil floersh
tucson/az/usa 04/20/2006 12:30 PM EST

Your friendly ACLU!

phil

Published by: Theo
Denver, Colorado 04/20/2006 12:24 PM EST

Religious folks are taxpayers, too. Since we pay into the tax fund, why should we not be able to take advantage of it too, like everyone else? Are we not full citizens?

Published by: Mike McCaffrey
Yarmouthport, MA 02675 04/20/2006 11:38 AM EST

I know this decision will elicit angry responses from Catholics motivated by the worthiness of training teachers for impoverished inner city Catholic schools. What I do not understand is the how this grant came to be funded in the first place. It is not difficult to know that public funds cannot be channeled to a church project in a nation which prides itself on the separation of church and state. This error might be an honest interpretive one, but it could be an effort to subvert the Constitution.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com