Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal

RJLipkin at aol.com RJLipkin at aol.com
Sat Mar 11 08:57:35 PST 2006


 
 
In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com writes:

My point--which focused only on the religious liberty  issue-- was that when 
faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar,  the Church must obey God. 
That is what the Church did in this case. It chose  to get out of the adoption 
ministry rather than stay in and disobey God.  That is clearly the right 
decision--indeed the only decision--for a  religious body to make. (boldface  
added)




        We know that religions  evolve even in fundamental ways. The Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints  once had a prohibition (I think) against 
blacks becoming bishops. I suspect such  changes have occurred in other 
religions also. If so, why is this the "only  decision" for a Church to make? Why 
isn't another conceivable position to  rethink the Church's opinion of this 
matter? I'm not suggesting that the  Catholic church is likely to do so, but then 
what is it about the Catholic  Church (and perhaps certain kinds of religions 
generally) that make it  impossible for them to respond to changes in law, 
customs, or non-Catholic  morality with the attitude expressed by "Well, let's 
examine the issue." My  question is not only whether should the Church adopt 
this attitude, but  what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal 
seriously?
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060311/18d3bcff/attachment.htm


More information about the Religionlaw mailing list