No Church Apology for Ordination of Sons Without LDS Father's Permission
According to the Trib:
The Utah Court of Appeals today heard a father's lawsuit claiming the LDS Church ordained his two sons without permission.
Michael Gulbraa says all he wanted after his two sons were ordained by the LDS Church without his permission was an official, written apology.
When officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to compel a general authority to produce one, he sued.
The father, a member of the LDS Church, said church leaders breached a secular agreement by performing religious ordinances without first obtaining his consent,
usurping his parental authority. He sought an injunction barring similar actions in the future.
After a 3rd District judge threw out the suit, Gulbraa took his case to the appellate court. Today, his attorney sought to have the suit reinstated.
His lawyer, Kevin Bond, noted that Gulbraa has been awarded sole custody of his sons.
"Mr. Gulbraa has the legal right to decide his children's religious upbringing," Bond argued.Church attorney Matthew Richards said the dispute is really between Gulbraa and his former wife; it was she who asked ecclesiastical leaders to perform the ordinance.
Because of that, Richards argued, the LDS Church is not liable for the ordinations.
"The church has the right to minister to its members the way it see fits," Richards said.
What say you? The dad had sole custody - does he have the right to say to the Church "don't ordain my kids"? If he does, should the Church be obliged to apologize? Is the reason the Church isn't liable just because the former wife asked to have the kids ordained - would it make a difference if the Church leader in question knew one way or the other that the father did NOT want the kids to be ordained, or that the father had sole custody? If the Church has the right to minister to its members the way it sees fit, should it exercise that right to disregard custodial rights in deference to "higher laws"?
posted by Citizen @ 3/22/2007 03:04:00 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Maybe it's because I'm at work right now, but how lame is it that he only wants an apology? Those are some deep pockets and I feel it is his duty as an American to go after them. (just kidding, I hope obviously).
Sounds more to me like some poor communication and planning more than anything else. If the church knew that he was the guardian and that he objected then the local leader probably should have tried to get permission. If he did try and couldn't get it, then that is a tough one, I know that in the baptism context if you can't get parent's permission there are many missions (I don't know if it is church wide) that make you wait until you are 18, so maybe they should just have waited if they could see that it was going to be that big of a deal.
If the church didn't know that he was the guradian then I think his issue is with the mother for not letting him know what was going on or for intentionally trying to get them ordained without him knowing, whatever the case may be.
As it turns out, this dude emailed the Church officials in Japan and they agreed not to ordain his sons without his permission. The Church officials don't deny that.
As for "you can't put a price on an apology" as he said, sure you can.
I say that price is about $45,000.
Sounds the the reverse case of the custody-standing issue in Newdow (sp?). I'm anxious to see how the Circuit court rules on this one.