The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing
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
I think that there is some
disconnect between your question and the NYT article. I think the issue is
not whether Congress could declare a cruel method of slaughter used for
religious purposes illegal. I think it pretty clearly could do so under Smith,
just as it couldpresumably declare
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
Both of you are objecting to the disaster language. Sorry, I'm a little
prone to hyperbole. But I didn't think the importance of religious staffing
was all that controverted. Charitable choice's proponents obviously believe
in it. And its opponents believe in it too: they usually rely on
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
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
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.
I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame
for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be
able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent.
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
Paul: If Catholic priests were required to perform or directly facilitate executions as acondition of visiting prisoners, my guess isthe Churchwould indeed withdraw from prison ministry. This is what the state of Massachusetts is doing to CC in the adoption area--it is requiring CC to arrange for
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
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
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
Catholics are not being asked to be gay by helping with adoptions, and they
do "facilitate executions" by helping prepare the person for death. The
church helps arrange executions by offering confession etc. to people who
are about to be executed. Why does the church focus on one line in Lev.
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
Paul,Yourcomparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption
Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exercise Clause. See the Society
of Jesus case about 1990, and a mid-90s case on marital status discrimination
by landlords, the name of which I am forgetting.
So why did
Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability
to engage in "adoption services" (which I assume means being in the
business of arranging adoptions) result in a substantial burden on its
religious exercise?
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Law
to the extent the Church helps the prison system keep order in the prison;
helps prepare priosners for death the church is complicitous in executions.
The problem is the church is willing to take a stand on issues that politically
appeal to the church adn not others; it is like the Catholic
It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that it's
not for profit. I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church.
Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to
sustain them or because other groups engage in similar
Doug Marty: I think CC had two reasons to withdraw rather than litigate. One is they were indeed concerned about their chances of winningthis free exercise issuein the Mass courts. Second, they were facing discrimination themselves from the United Way and other funding agencies that are
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
I suppose I should know the answer to this question, but I don't. Is it
permissible for mothers or parents who give a baby up for adoption to have the
baby placed with adoptive parents of the biological parents' faith -- or to not
have the baby placed with adoptive parents who are gay? If those
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
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
I didn't mean to question the sincere religious
motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is
following). I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts
prevents CC from doing, and whether andhowthat
particularlegal restriction imposes a substantial
Uh, that would be "genuinely curious."
Sorry
- Original Message -
From:
Marty Lederman
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:33
PM
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities
Issue
I didn't mean to question the sincere religious
While I don't have an immediate answer to Marty's qusetion, I want to commend
him and others who have focused on the legal question involved. As for the
posters who want to use the issue as a vehicle for criticizing the Church for
its postition, and lecture it on how to reform its theology
Marty, I could be wrong about this because I am relying on my recollection of news reports, but I think the problem is that CC's entire adoption program concerns finding homes forhard-to-adopt children in state custody. The state pays CC a grant to find homes for children in state custody, subject
What this disputere: Catholic Charities illustrates is the danger of
any religious institution in relying upon government funding for its
programs. Government funding always comes with strings. In general,
Catholic Charities gets 86% of its funding from government sources, 14% from
private,
If this is a government funded program,the broad
reading of Locke v. Davey implies that the government is free to give
the money, withhold the money, give the money with strings, or discriminate
against religion in the allocation of funds. The narrow reading is that
this unlimited power
If the program works in the way that Rick describes, the next question I would
ask is this. Is it the case that as a result of Catholic Charities position,
some kids would stay in state custody for a longer period of time -- or may
never get adopted -- because Catholic Charities will not
I think Marci and Doug are spot on. The state, as in Rust, says "this is our program, take it or leave it." CC says, "okay, we'll leave it." CC loses a part of its ministry, the state loses one of its best adoption-service providers, and the kids stay in state custody longer (and, for some,
It is not at all impossible
to have both gay rights and religious liberty. It is just that the gay
rights activists mostly refuse to recognize religious liberty (at least if any
gay rights issue is in anyway implicated), and the more conservative religious
liberty activists mostly refuse
Not only isn't it impossible to have both gay rights and religious liberty, the
core of both sets of claims have common foundations. It makes no more sense
for a gay activist to insist that a religious person should ignore the duties
he or she owes to G-d (a duty that, I believe, arises out of
The strong religious freedom protections Doug mentions simply don't exist under constitutional law or under presently-enacted antidiscrimination laws. If gay rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. Moreover, religious dissenters in states like Massachusettsare
37 matches
Mail list logo
