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