Dear Michael, This does not contradict your point but, as it happens, and for what it's worth, the Catholic Church has not done away with indulgences. See, e.g.:
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-grants-indulgences-for-world-youth-da That said, there was recently some confusion over the question whether Pope Francis had *really* told people that following him on Twitter was a way to obtain them: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/07/18/no-the-pope-isnt-tweeting-indulgences-to-his-followers/ =-) All the best, Rick Richard W. Garnett Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Political Science Director, Program on Church, State & Society Notre Dame Law School P.O. Box 780 Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780 574-631-6981 (w) 574-276-2252 (cell) rgarn...@nd.edu To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN page <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=342235> Blogs: Prawfsblawg <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/> Mirror of Justice <http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/> Twitter: @RickGarnett <https://twitter.com/RickGarnett> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > To emphasize two policy changes in the LDS faith is legitimate; however > the centrality of traditional sexual norms to the LDS faith is extremely > more central than those changes. > > It is like saying to a Catholic "because you did away with indulgences, > you'll eventually deny that Christ's blood is literally in the sacrament." > I think that would be offensive to all Catholics. LDS teachings on > marriage in this regard are just as central to our faith as the doctrine > of Transubstantiation is to Catholics. > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Levinson, Sanford V < > slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote: > >> Isn't it foolish in the extreme to assert that "time and culture" are >> not part and parcel of the history of all religious movements, even if one >> concedes, perhaps for reasons of tact, that they are not "simply" such >> products. (I frankly have no idea what secularists actually mean by that >> concession. Some may be agnostics, genuinely open to the unproven >> possibility of revealed religion.). For starters, though, look at the LDS >> renunciation of polygamy in 1890 (not to mention the later renunciation of >> an all-white priesthood), the Protestant critique of selling indulgences >> (and the response of the Catholic Church), or the 11th century decision of >> Ashkenazik Jews to ban polygamy even as Sephardi Jews living in Islamic >> cultures stuck with it, some until the 20th century. I could obviously go >> on and on. I have no doubt whatsoever that some adamantly opposed to same >> sex marriage religious groups will change their collective minds in the >> next decades. Can anyone seriously doubt that? >> >> This is much like debates between committed legal "internalists" who >> take everything the Supreme Court says with full seriousness (including >> Roberts's assertion on Tuesday that judges aren't "politicians") and >> committed legal realists who see ONLY politicians in robes. The truth may >> be somewhere in between, both for law and religion as systems of practices >> always striving to maintain their legitimacy within the wider culture. >> >> Sandy >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 1, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Alan: Thank you for that very thoughtful and candid reply. >> >> >> >> I apologize if my wording in response to Eugene's post was infelicitous, >> or insensitive, in any way. I was trying to be very careful *not* to >> suggest that all religious objectors would "change their minds." I agree >> with you that some will not. >> >> >> >> And I certainly did not write, and did not mean to suggest in the >> slightest, any of the following: >> >> >> >> -- that religious beliefs are "simply" a "product of time and culture" >> >> >> >> -- "that religious beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are >> purely an irrational bias" >> >> >> >> -- that religious beliefs on this question are dependent upon, or >> necessarily reflect, "bigotry" (or "animus," for that matter) >> >> >> >> -- that anyone "misunderstands" their own religion >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> -- that conservative Christian teachings about sex have the same place in >> the church that former teachings about race did. >> >> >> >> Indeed, I don't *believe *any of those things to be true, and so I >> surely would not argue for them or intend to suggest them in this thread. >> >> >> >> Of course, as your response acknowledges, religious beliefs of many >> individuals (not all)--and of many religious institutions--do change as a >> result of shifts in social practices, which tend to be followed by shifts >> in understandings of human nature. These shifts sometimes occur even with >> respect to theological commitments that have long been viewed as based in >> transcendent truth. The examples are legion--within my faith, the Catholic >> Church, the LDS, etc.; I know I don't need to belabor the point. The Notre >> Dame video, making great efforts to attract LGBT students, is merely the >> latest example. But it's of a piece with many, many other, similar >> trends. Even so, I agree with you that after a rapid change in the views >> of most people, some portion of the population is likely to maintain its >> religiously grounded views about homosexuality. (Your 20% seems like a >> reasonable guess about that number.) >> >> >> >> The point I was trying to make, however, was not about the cause, or the >> rate, of changes in individuals' religious beliefs. What I wrote was that, >> if and when antidiscrimination laws are extended more broadly to sexual >> orientation, "very few" of today's religious *organizations* will be >> "legally and socially marginalized" because "they will have voluntarily >> ended *their discriminatory practices*." Indeed, as I emphasized in >> later posts, even today there are very few such organizations that openly >> engage in such discriminatory practices (other than as to ministerial >> positions). And that number will only diminish--probably to a small >> handful--by the time Congress gets around to amending Title VII and Title >> IX to cover sexual orientation. >> >> >> >> I hope that better explains what I was getting at. I certainly did not >> mean to disparage or trivialize anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs. >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> Marty >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Alan Hurst <alan.hu...@aya.yale.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks to Marty and everyone else for the discussion here. I'm finding >>> it very informative. >>> >>> I wanted to respond briefly, however, to Marty's wager below: >>> >>> And Eugene, I'd be willing to wager that very few of today's >>>> conservative Christians' organizations will be "legally and socially >>>> marginalized" at that point, because by then they, too, will have >>>> voluntarily ended their discriminatory practices. >>>> >>> >>> I have two quick thoughts about this. First, I think you should >>> consider a bit more carefully how that argument sounds to someone whose >>> religious beliefs include the rejection of same-sex sexual relationships as >>> immoral. "You shouldn't worry about the long run because your religions >>> will just change their minds on this issue anyway" suggests at least one of >>> the following two ideas: >>> >>> --that religious beliefs are simply a product of time and culture, >>> with no basis in any transcendent truth and no capacity to resist broader >>> cultural movements. >>> >>> --that religious beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are >>> purely an irrational bias and, like religious opposition to interracial >>> marriage, will gradually vanish as gay marriage becomes commonplace and >>> believers' aversion to gay relationships is worn down by familiarity. >>> >>> You may in fact believe these two ideas, and although I don't, I'm >>> certainly not going to change your mind here. But I do hope you'll consider >>> for a moment how they sound to believers who disagree with you. In essence, >>> when you say, "Your religion will change on this issue," you're saying >>> either, "The beliefs you've built your life on have no basis in reality" or >>> "Your bigotry has led you to misunderstand your own religion." True or >>> false, these two thoughts are quite the opposite of comforting to a >>> believer who worries about this issue. They do as much as anything to >>> persuade believers that people like you really don't understand religion >>> and really are out to get them. >>> >>> Second, if I were a betting man, I'd take your wager. Partially I'd >>> take it because, well, the analogy between religious racism and religious >>> heteronormativity is at most superficially accurate. Conservative Christian >>> teachings about sex just have a much different place in the church than >>> American Christians' teachings about race ever did--theologically, >>> functionally, socially, historically, etc. These things are simply not the >>> same. Douthat wrote briefly (but I think accurately) about this here: >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/rosss-douthat-interview-with-a-christian.html?_r=0 >>> >>> And partially I'd take your wager because religion has always been an >>> international phenomenon, and like everything else it's getting to be more >>> so. The heart of Christianity is moving from Europe and North America to >>> Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Within a few decades, China may be home to >>> more Christians than any other country. American Catholicism has never been >>> centrally important to the Catholic church, and even we Mormons now have >>> more members outside the U.S. than inside. Unless the gay marriage movement >>> catches on in a lot of places where it's not yet had much traction, I think >>> these Christians abroad are going to give some ballast to American >>> Christian opposition to gay marriage. To some extent it's already >>> happened--see, for example, the ties springing up between conservative >>> American Episcopalians and African Anglicans. >>> >>> My prediction? I think religious opposition to gay marriage is going >>> to be like religious opposition to premarital sex. The polls will move more >>> rapidly than anyone once thought possible, and in a decade or two only 20% >>> of Americans will think gay marriage is immoral. And then the graph will >>> bottom out, and you're going to have about 20% of Americans still thinking >>> that for a long time. >>> >>> So, no, I don't think these issues are going away. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> (My apologies, but I took an hour that I didn't really have to write >>> this, and I don't know when I'll be able to post again. But Marty, if you >>> respond, I promise I'll get back to you eventually.) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Michael Worley > J.D., Brigham Young University > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
