We've talked about this before. The issue is this resolution passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It was a reaction to Cardinal Levada and the CDF voicing opposition to homosexual adoptions based on *gasp* Catholic teaching.
The resolution described the CDF's elucidation of Catholic teaching as everything from "ignorant" to "callous" to "insulting."
I wonder if they would say such things about Jewish or Muslim teachings.
A majority of the Ninth Circuit has decided that this kind of attack on religion is ok. Granted, it's for a variety of reasons. A few said that the Supervisors were perfectly within their rights to do what they did. A few more said that the Catholic League didn't have the standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Add them up and you get the majority opinion on the Court.
The CalCatholic Daily article is a good recap of things. For any masochists, you can read the full opinion here.
This would be, I think, another indication of the "long defeat" that Atticus mentioned in one of our prior entries. More than that, it shows the envelope getting pushed a little bit further. Is it really that big a leap from this to the Elizabethan oaths against transubstantiation? One of the judges in the case specifically mentions such a point as where the line would be drawn, but you'll have to excuse me if I take little solace in that. At one point, abortion and contraception could be prohibited as well, and nobody foresaw their ever being permissible in civilized society. We got "enlightened" enough to change that.
What will happen when we reach such a level of sophistication that we'll be able to say that Catholic morality is a danger to the state and must be suppressed?
No comments:
Post a Comment