Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Catholics Need Not Apply

Not so great in Slate is Chris Hitchens's piece Catholic Justice. Says Galley Friend C.L.:
If I'm not mistaken, Hitch is subtly calling for the institution of a "No Catholics Need Apply" policy for Supreme Court nominees with this piece. Funniest bit: He calls Kennedy--ANTHONY KENNEDY--"strong in the faith."

And what then to make of his vote on Casey, Hitch? Kinda shitcans your entire premise, no?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

A religious test is a religious test is a religious test. Senators have no business asking Roberts or any other nominee for federal office about his faith or its connection to the job he is being asked to do. If they want to know his views on church-state separation, they should ask about that, and leave his Catholicism out of it. Jeez, what is this, 1955?

Anonymous said...

Talk of conflict between Catholicism and the Constitution is a smoke screen that Hitchens and others will use to try and scare the ignorant. The Constitution is a relatively short document with open architecture guidelines that are (despite Hitchens' imagination to the contrary) based in traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. Nothing in the Catholic religion is going to find an actual impasse with the Constitution. What may reach an impasse is Catholic belief and certain existing, morally questionable laws and court decisions. And a justice with some moral fiber may overturn those to better align with the Constitution. This is what the activist left cannot tolerate and why they'll continually try to confuse the issue by equating specious reasoning in earlier courts with the Constitution itself. Don't be fooled.

Anonymous said...

"What about the death penalty? It is the law of the land at the federal level, it is specifically allowed by the Constitution, and is applied in more states than not. Yet the last several popes have been crystal clear in maintaining, as Jesus made clear with his own actions, that the death penalty is evil."

Why do people who try to make this argument keep bringing up the death penalty? The personal opposition of popes to capital punishment doesn't change the fact that, unlike abortion, official Catholic teaching has never stated that the death penalty is contrary to Christian morality. This example is in the dictionary under the expression "red herring."

As for Jesus, I'd be interested to know what "actions" of His demonstrate His clear opposition to the death penalty.

Anonymous said...

Hitch disputes Scalia's interpretations of Christian influence on U.S. History, and calls him a fool. Hey, there's a mismatch, Hitchens and Scalia: which one would you say really understands U.S. History??!

Anonymous said...

arrScott writes:

"A person who must ask which of Jesus' actions might suggest his disapproval of capital punishment needs to read the Gospel of John."

Translation: "I don't know." No where does Jesus ever deny the right of states to execute criminals. In fact, He told Pilate that the only reason he had any power over anyone (including Jesus) was because God had given it to him.

As for the connection between papal encyclicals and infallibity, the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority."

That such utterances should be received and considered seriously by all Catholics is certainly so. That they are in and of themselves binding is not. So much for capital punishment.

Returning to the larger point, arrScott writes, "the point remains that it is possible for the laws of the land to require a judge to issue a ruling that is contrary to Catholic teaching." Actually, it doesn't. As a Supreme Court justice, neither Roberts nor any of his fellow SCOTUS Catholics would ever be required to rule on whether a particular law was right or just according to Catholic teaching. They would only be asked whether it was legitimate according to the US Constitution and the statutes flowing from it. Roberts has made clear in various public statements and documents he's written or contributed to that he doesn't approve of judges imposing their personal policy preferences or moral opinions on the law. I genuinely doubt that he cares, as a judge, whether Roe v. Wade accords with Catholic teaching. The evidence is that he would rule on abortion cases, and if need be on Roe itself, in terms of whether it accords with the Constitution. If the Senate Judiciary Committee wants to ask him whether he thinks it does or not, that's a legitimate question. Asking him about his faith, and the role it will play in his decisions as a Justice, is to suggest that there are aspects of his faith that would disqualify him from serving, i.e., to ipso facto impose a religious test. Simply the fact that this issue is never raised about Protestants (especially the liberal variety) or Jews is the best practical demonstration that we're talking about a violation of Article VI.