|
Eugene: I think all religions have their inconsistencies. My position
here is not to attack the Catholic Church, and I hope no one thinks it
is. Rather, it is to point out to those who are condemning the Mass.
Law that the Church simply chooses which laws to make a fuss over, and
which laws not to make a fuss over, and that despite claims of Profs.
Duncan and Esser, this is clearly not an open and shut case about the
state forcing the church to abandon its doctrine if it wishes to
continue to place children in adoptive families. The Church is not
being asked to condone any particular family relationship, it is only
being asked to continue to work with the state in placing children in
homes that the State finds suitable. The Church has ever right to
withdraw from doing this, but this is not a simple case of the state
trying to force the church to act against its teachings, just as it is
not asking the Church to act against its teachings to help the state
execute people. But, in doing so the Church does aid in the process. I will not post anything more on this unless a posting is directed at me. My point in all these posting to suggest through analogy that the Catholic Church might very well be able to help children find loving homes without endorsing the choices the state makes on who is fit to be a parent make just as it helps minister to those about to be executed without endorsing the choices the state makes on how to punish people. Thus, I have argued that the church is making a political statement here, not necessarily a religious one. With that, I will cease posting on this issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: Whether the Church is behaving consistently or well is not, it seems to me, a matter of the law of government and religion. I suspect that the lines drawn by religious people often seem inconsistent or even hypocritical to those outside the faith. I imagine that there are those who would speak of various alleged inconsistencies in Judaism, for instance, with the same contempt that Prof. Finkelman shows towards what he sees as inconsistencies in Catholicism. I see little benefit in debating these questions on this list; they are more suited to discussions of Catholic theology and morality -- surely important topics, but not ones that are terribly relevant to the law of government and religion.More particularly, I should note that what counts as complicity in evil and what counts as amelioration of evil is a notoriously mushy area. We see that in secular American law. We see that in secular moral debates, for instance about needle exchange programs. It shouldn't be surprising that different religious groups would come to different conclusions about the kind and degree of aid involved in different situations. It might be wiser, then, to accept that others may have a different view without being hypocrites or supporters of destroying lives. But in any event, I stress again that this is a matter for other places than this list. The list custodian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:24 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: And Now For Something Completely Different The church claims to oppose capital pubishemt, but sends priests in to the prisons to help calm prisoners and get them ready to be killed; the church would say this is not complicitous; but I don't see a whole lot of difference between working in the prisons to make capital punishment easy for the exectuioners and the state and helping children find homes with parents who might be gay. In one case the Church says it is doing it to help the victims of the state's execution policy (but it also helps the state) and in another case it will not help the vicitms of disfunctional families (the children) because it does not believe in same sex relations; in NEITHER case is it endorsing same sex relations or capital punishment but the Church chooses to work with one system that takes lives against church teaching, but will not work with another system that helps SAVE lives of children, because some of the people involved do things that the church opposes. I should add that one would hope the church sees killing as worse than being gay. The way I see this the issue is all about politics and the church playing ever anit-gay card it has. Imagine the public reaction if the Church said it WOULD NOT work with the prison system; that it would not offer communion to any politician who supported capital punishment (as Bishops urged with John Kerry) and would furthermore, not offer Communion anyone who who worked in prisons where executions took place or to judges who ordered them or prosecutors who asked for the death penalty or jurors who voted for it! I am not arguing the church should do any of these things, I am merely pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the church's position on these two issues -- Anti-gay to hurt kids; but not willing to follow through to save lives. Perhaps the consistency is that both policies end up destroying lives. Paul Will Esser wrote: Paul, The problem that I have with your use of the term "complicity" is that it is so large as to have no meaningful boundaries. You contend that by allowing priests to hear the confessions of inmates who are on death row, the Church is complicit with (and somehow shares moral responsibility for) capital punishment. Your reasoning seems to apply equally to doctors who serve the medical needs of those on death row, as well as the Red Cross providing assistance to those affected by war. I think everyone on this list would agree that there is no complicity in such situations. Providing priests to serve the spiritual needs of those on death row is not inconsistent with the position which Catholic Charities is now taking. And Massachusetts should realize that an exemption from the law is proper step to take to resolve this issue. Will &nb! sp; [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I suggested with the church complicity with executions (and maybe unjust wars, and many other things in society), the church chooses its causes based on politics. I real test of the church would come when bishops condemn politicians who order executions or start unjust wars as vigorously has they work to keep kids in our foster care system rather than helping them find loving homes with loving adults. The Human Rights campaign is right on target with this statement. Thanks Rick for sharing this. Quoting Rick Duncan : -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74105 918-631-3706 (voice) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
