RE: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
The right thing to do? I am not so sure. You did say that some children will suffer. Is that a good thing? Oops. This discussion probably belongs off-list. From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:15 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal From the Boston Globe: The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents. The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality. The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century, the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and ! needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work. But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve, they said. The state's four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Isn't this precisely symmetrical to religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition tointerracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays is not? Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
At 07:32 AM 3/11/2006, you wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Isn't this precisely symmetrical to religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition to interracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays is not? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware in my opinion it *is* precisely symmetrical because interracial marriages were considered immoral. The arguments against gay marriage are entirely recycled from another era. Susan --- Author of Murder on the Waterfront http://tinyurl.com/87m54 Jubilee, A Novel http://tinyurl.com/9x6m9 The Pocket Darwin http://www.nuuf.org/darwin1.html And Much More: http://www.coganbooks.net ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
I believe the Church properly sees race as irrelevant to sexuality and family formation. But homosexuality is much different from race.Here is the current Pope's position on adoption by homosexual couples:But a conflict between the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts and Beacon Hill has been evolving for several decades, as state policy makers have adopted an increasingly expansive view of gay rights, starting with a nondiscrimination measure in 1989 and culminating in 2004, when Massachusetts became the only state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage . At the same time, the Vatican, often guided by the theologian who is now Pope Benedict XVI, became increasingly alarmed at the growing tolerance of homosexuality in the West, and in 2003 Benedict issued a doctrinal statement opposing same-sex unions and declaring that ''allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions! would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." Link.Obviously, millions ofreasonable people of good will believe that Benedict XVI is acting rationally and in good faith. My point--which focused only on thereligious 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 adoptionministry rather than stay in and disobey God. That is clearly the right decision--indeed the only decision--for a religious body to make.Cheers, Rick Duncan[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Isn't this precisely symmetrical to religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition tointerracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays is not? BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will ! not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
Whoops! The link in my previous post to the Pope's views about homosexual adoption did not work. Here is the correctedlink.Cheers, Rick[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Isn't this precisely symmetrical to religions opposed to interracial adoption? Or is the point that opposition tointerracial adoption is irrational while opposition to adoption by gays is not? BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 memb! ers can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point--which focused only on thereligious 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 adoptionministry 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 occurredin 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 onlywhether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously? Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion,my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI.Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:My point--which focused only on thereligious 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 adoptionministry 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 occurredin 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 onlywhether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?! BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
Slavery was prevalent in biblical times and many references were cited to support slavery. And so, Rick, are you saying that you will only join a church that sides with the South in the Civil War on the slavery issue because the Bible says so? Or is it that interpretations have changed or that permission is not the same as mandate?It seems to me that at the very least homosexuality existed in Biblical times and that should tell us that it is something pretty normal across a big population.So far as religion and law are concerned, isn't this an area where we see a serious disconnect and problems with faith-based grants supporting what is unconstitutional in some instances and supporting what is against public policy (including health policy) in others?SteveOn Mar 11, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race, strikes at the very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I would leave my church and join another, if my church suddenly discovered that the Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion, my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if it adopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar"When I grow up, I too will go to faraway places, and when I grow old, I too will live by the sea.""That is all very well, little Alice," said her grandfather, "but there is a third thing you
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
In a message dated 3/11/2006 12:27:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Rick, isn't the question--at least for religionists--what are "God's moral teachings" and who gets to decide this? I too am not a Catholic theologian, but a Catholic once told me that the Pope became infallible in the 16th or 17th century. If so, the choice of Pope as the authoritative interpreter of Catholic faith and morals was not a feature of the original Church and is arguably man, not God,made. Perhaps there's too great a gulf here, but I try to understand those who condemn homosexuality as immoral, and if I were compelled to do so, I suppose I could construct a relatively plausible argument against same-sex marriage. I wonder whether Christians (and here again I speak as an outsider) who cherish love and understanding can construct a relatively plausible argument that includes homosexuality as part of the "essence of the Created Order." As for "Christianity" I am certainly incompetent to attempt to explicate its meaning. But wasn't slavery and segregation argued for on the same grounds as being required by Christianity? I suppose Rick mightfind tedious the argument comparing the condemnation of same-sex marriage with the condemnation ofmiscegenation.The comparison overlooks, of course, what he takes to bea morally relevant difference between the two. But it's difficult for many of us to appreciate what this relevant difference is on moral grounds. And so the gulf probably is too wide. One final point. The use of "secular elites," in my view, is unfair. There are many Christians--even Catholics--who reject the Pope's morality, and many secularists who agree with it. I doubt that theproponents and opponents of same-sex marriage can be clearly distinguishedas secularists and religionists. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not lie down with men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics? Rick Duncan wrote: Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion,my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point--which focused only on thereligious 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 adoptionministry 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 occurredin 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 onlywhether 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 ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
I suppose it is about time to start stoning people to death as taught in the old testament . . . .As noted by Bobby Lifkin, perhaps the gulf is just too wide. Outsiders see gross and inexplicable inconsistencies that insiders see as obviously correct and consistent positions.I think the Solomon Amendment is a good analogy in pointing out how one does not want to need to conform to norms established by the state or others -- but we do so -- The military exclusion of gays is somewhat like racial discrimination by private firms, but there are at least two differences: private v. public; and it is the military.SteveOn Mar 11, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not lie down with men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics? Rick Duncan wrote: Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race, strikes at the very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I would leave my church and join another, if my church suddenly discovered that the Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion, my church would no longer be a "Christian" church if it adopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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___ 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
I don't want to argue Catholic (or Protestan)ttheology on list. Let me just say that many students of the Bible believe that it is not so much what the Bible says is evil that definesmarriage as a one-flesh, dual-gender relationship. Rather, it is what the Bible says is the goodof marriage and of true sexual union.Are their any examples in the Bible in which same-sex "marriages" or homosexual families are displayed asan ideal of sexual union and family life? In its adoption ministry, the Church is concerned about what is the good of family life for children, not whether to stone sinners for sexual sins.RickSteven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose it is about time to start stoning people to death as t! aught in the old testament . . . .As noted by Bobby Lifkin, perhaps the gulf is just too wide. Outsiders see gross and inexplicable inconsistencies that insiders see as obviously correct and consistent positions.I think the Solomon Amendment is a good analogy in pointing out how one does not want to need to conform to norms established by the state or others -- but we do so -- The military exclusion of gays is somewhat like racial discrimination by private firms, but there are at least two differences: private v. public; and it is the military.Steve On Mar 11, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not li! e down with men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics?Rick Duncan wrote:Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion,my church woul! d no longer be a "Christian" church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI.Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:My point--which focused only on thereligious 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 adoptionministry 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 occurredin 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 ma! tter? 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 onlywhether should the Church adopt this attitude, but what about the Church prevents it from taking this proposal seriously?! BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or! Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! ___ To
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
On Mar 11, 2006, at 5:12 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:I don't want to argue Catholic (or Protestan)t theology on list. Let me just say that many students of the Bible believe that it is not so much what the Bible says is evil that defines marriage as a one-flesh, dual-gender relationship. Rather, it is what the Bible says is the good of marriage and of true sexual union. Are their any examples in the Bible in which same-sex "marriages" or homosexual families are displayed as an ideal of sexual union and family life? None that I know of. On the other hand, all the birthday parties have bad things associated with them, so I guess we should not celebrate birthdays -- I guess we should all become JWs.But, if we can agree that there are various opinions and interpretations of the Bible's dictates on how to treat GLBT people, then it seems to me that your essential predicate for accommodation and funding of groups that frustrate rather than support the purposes of the funding falls by the boards.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."Benjamin Franklin ___ 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.
Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
Well, as long as Rick is invoking what "many students of the Bible" think about "true" sexual union, I think it's worth pointing out that in his original post in this thread, Rick quoted the first five paragraphs of today's Boston globe story. But there's a sixth paragraph, too, which Rick neglected to show us. It reads as follows: Eight members of Catholic Charities board later stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions. Apparently those 42 members of the Catholic Charities Board are not the sorts of "students of the Bible" that Rick has in mind. P.S. Just to be clear -- I am not suggesting that Catholic Charities should abide by the (unanimous) judgment of its Board, rather than the decree of the Bishops. - Original Message - From: Rick Duncan To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal I don't want to argue Catholic (or Protestan)ttheology on list. Let me just say that many students of the Bible believe that it is not so much what the Bible says is evil that definesmarriage as a one-flesh, dual-gender relationship. Rather, it is what the Bible says is the goodof marriage and of true sexual union. Are their any examples in the Bible in which same-sex "marriages" or homosexual families are displayed asan ideal of sexual union and family life? In its adoption ministry, the Church is concerned about what is the good of family life for children, not whether to stone sinners for sexual sins. RickSteven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose it is about time to start stoning people to death as t! aught in the old testament . . . . As noted by Bobby Lifkin, perhaps the gulf is just too wide. Outsiders see gross and inexplicable inconsistencies that insiders see as obviously correct and consistent positions. I think the Solomon Amendment is a good analogy in pointing out how one does not want to need to conform to norms established by the state or others -- but we do so -- The military exclusion of gays is somewhat like racial discrimination by private firms, but there are at least two differences: private v. public; and it is the military. Steve On Mar 11, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote: Rick; aren't you cherry picking? There is one line in Lev. restated in Deut. saying men should not li! e down with men, like women. The Bible devotes far more effort to ordering the execution of witches or dietary rules or how to conduct animal burnt offerings. It is hard to see how you think homosexuality is so central to Biblical law. Isn't this really about politics?Rick Duncan wrote: Bobby: I am not a Catholic theologian (but the current Pope is a very serious theological scholar). But a very quick answer, based upon my knowledge of Scripture, is to say that homosexuality, unlike race,strikes atthe very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I would leave mychurch and join another, ifmy churchsuddenlydiscovered thatthe Bible's teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion,my church woul! d no longer be a "Christian" church if itadopted such a theology. This, of course, is exactly what is happening in some mainline Protestant churches today. The issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to be for Benedict XVI. Cheers, Rick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point--which focused only on thereligious 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 adoptionministry 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 occurredin other religions also. If so, why is this the "only
Catholic Charities Not Bending the Knee to Baal
From the Boston Globe: The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents.The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality."The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and ! needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work."But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.The state's four Catholic bishops said earlier this month that the law threatens the church's religious freedom by forcing it to do something it considers immoral This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the Archdiocese has to obey its conscience. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ___ 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.
