I never liked the idea that alignments are straight-jackets with no room for variation. I look at the world around me and I see infinite examples of people with different alignments who cooperate for their mutual success, so I always felt that the game should allow for that as well.
I agree with this, but.....
.......within the context of the DCC game, alignment is real. The conflict between Law and Chaos is real. Consider the Appendix N stories from which the game is derived. Elric served Lords of Chaos, but does not wish to. As a result, sometimes Lords of Law actually aid him, but it is never easy.
In the case of the cleric, disapproval and the limitations of healing based on alignment and deity are part of the way the character class works. Changing this adds power to the cleric, because the cleric's primary limitation is that he cannot ignore the dictates and wishes of his god. It also, IMHO, removes flavour from the game and diminishes the impact of player choices.
Rather, I prefer to note that the game already allows people to work together....but, if they make choices that impose limitations on how well they do so, I am not going to diminish the impact of those choices. (1) I don't want to render those choices moot, and (2) I don't want to undo the limitations that those choices represent, because doing so removes balance...and more importantly, flavour
....elements from the design.
But what I would do should never limit what you want to do.....run the game in whatever way makes you happiest! That is the core "truth" of old school gaming!
If however, you have a group of mature players who can handle the conflict without a negative impact to everyone's enjoyment, then I am absolutely with Raven's approach to let the party deal with it.
That is, I admit, a basic assumption on my part.....that the players are mature or that, with some guidance, they will become so. But, then, my table includes two thirteen-year-olds who can be mature, so I expect the same from the adult players!