The NCAA needed to convince the judge that no genuine and disputed issues of material fact remain, and when viewing the evidence most favorably to the players, that the NCAA would be clearly entitled to
prevail as a matter of law.
Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter
of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light
of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form
of the Christian religion in which it is possible to be
as pleasing to God
as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining
matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil
law should
prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction
of public schools in which the youth
of Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church; that moral
laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion
of the State to the exclusion
of all other forms
of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.»
To
prevail on summary judgment, the defendant is required to demonstrate that no genuine issue
of material fact exists and the undisputed facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, require judgment for the defendant
as a
matter of law.
Because our existing case
law holds that a property owner does not violate the duty
of reasonable care by failing to remove natural accumulations
of snow and ice, see Sullivan v. Brookline, 416 Mass. 825, 827 (1994), the judge concluded that,
as a
matter of law, the plaintiff could not
prevail on his claims
of negligence; therefore, the judge allowed the defendants» motions for summary judgment.