Today is the annual Red Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C., an annual mass for those in the legal profession. Several Supreme Court justices attend, which is causing some folks some consternation. CNN reports on the “controversy” over the mass.
“The truth is, this was set up as a way to basically lecture and give information to the justices,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “There is no other institution that has this special way to talk to the justices on the Supreme Court.” . . .
The Red Mass was started in Washington in 1952 by the John Carroll Society, a lay Catholic group of prominent lawyers and professionals. . . .
Lynn, an ordained minister with the United Church of Christ, noted the Mass was begun after several high court decisions that were disapproved of by the archdiocese.
“They figured if they got all the justices together and chatted them up in a worship service, they might be able to convince them to see the law their way,” he said.
In 1989, a top church official used the occasion of the Mass to call for a return to “religiously based moral values” and lament the “inviolable, impenetrable and towering wall” between church and state.
In 1986, Washington Cardinal James Hickey attacked the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. . . .
Church officials, however, said they do not attempt to lobby or seek to persuade anyone who attends the service. [Washington Archbishop Donald] Wuerl likens the experience to putting aside the partisanship and troubles in the world and seeking comfort in a shared community and a sacred place.
Americans have “been very careful about ... not allowing any one tradition or church to become the state church,” he said. “But from the very beginning, we’ve always said we need to hear the voice of faith in all the discussion that is a part of determining what we want to do.”
Lynn takes a different tack.
“I don’t think there is any doubt that people in that congregation, including the Supreme Court justices, are going to listen to what is said. They might hear something phrased in a way you might never hear it in the court, but it might become a lingering factor in their decisions. ... People who are concerned about the Red Mass worry about this kind of undue influence, an influence that no other group, religious or otherwise, has on those nine men and women.”
The story also notes that six of the nine sitting justices are Catholic, but not only Catholic justices attend. Justice Stephen Breyer, for instance, has been a regular attendee.
It seems to me that Lynn’s concerns are misplaced. If Supreme Court justices cannot attend an annual mass, or any other event at which powerful worldviews are advanced, without compromising the integrity or independence of our judicial system, we have much bigger problems than this one service. We expect justices to be able to make legal decisions based on the law in front of them, setting aside their personal moral views and any desire they may have for approval by outside groups. And even if the occasional Red Mass sermon prosletyzes on a current controversy, I think the justices can handle it. No matter what is said about abortion, school prayer, or any other issue on which the church has a strong position, I doubt it will have much influence on the decisions of Justice Breyer or any the other justices who attend.
UPDATE: The AP reports that six justices — Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor — attended the Red Mass today, as did Vice President Biden.
Procrustes says:
“any other event at which
powerful worlda frequent litigant’s political views are advanced directly to the Justices with the intent to influence their opinions”Fixed.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:52 amDave N says:
Barry Lynn gets paid to get very excited and to try to make much ado about nothing.
Nothing requires Supreme Court Justices (or anyone else) to attend the Red Mass or read the WSJ or NYT editorial pages, for that matter. I would hope that judges, like all other sentient beings, can filter and evaluate information even if, gasp, the horror, it is coming from a pulpit.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:57 amArthurKirkland says:
I hope the Justices have the education, intelligence and common sense (let alone the reality-based perspective) to vindicate this point:
No matter what is said about abortion, school prayer, or any other issue on which the church has a strong position, I doubt it will have much influence on the decisions of Justice Breyer or any the other justices who attend.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:08 amstephen says:
They had one of these last year, right?
And the year before that?
And for many years before that?
Is there any evidence that these things actually influence votes on the Supreme Court?
No one seriously believes these things have any effect whatever on the law. The rent-a-mob need to do a better job of seeking out real travesties instead of going on about the same old harmless things year after year.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:10 amJudges Gone Wild (at the Red Mass). Why is this different from Justices Going to Europe? « Josh Blackman's Blog says:
[...] at Volokh, Jonathan Adler writes: It seems to me that Lynn’s concerns are misplaced. If Supreme Court [...]
Josh Blackman says:
It amazes me the things the left gets upset about. If we are to presume that the Justices are so fickle, that a single sermon or Mass will impact their views on huge Constitutional issues, how does that reflect the Left’s faith in the role of the Judge? Actually, this fear is telling.
Justice Kennedy, for example, takes annual trips to Salzburg, Austria. Jeffrey Toobin in The Nine has written how this exposure to European ideals has changed his views of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If the Left seeks to criticize the Justices from going to a single mass, perhaps the Right should admonish Kennedy from going to Europe to have his views modified?
Why is going to Church any different from studying law in Austria? They both have the power to persuade, and change a Judge’s mind. Perhaps this just reflects the Left’s negative feelings towards organized religion, but their embrace of European legal values.
http://joshblogs.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/judges-gone-wild-at-the-red-mass-why-is-this-different-from-justices-going-to-europe/
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:25 amArthurKirkland says:
If they have no effect, what’s the point? Just another Trekkie fanfest or midnight Rocky Horror Picture Show exhibition?
In that case, I guess it’s OK.
P.S. I guess I see the similarity in costumes.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:28 amJohnF says:
What is the “Red” in Red Mass?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:57 amraoul says:
As a liberal I have no problem with this though I never heard of it until reading it here. What I find interesting is that 6 out 9 jusstices are RC. Let’s see Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy. 5 out of the 6 appointed by pubbies. Why is that?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:58 amAnon21 says:
Frankly, it doesn’t strike me as terribly significant. Pretty much any conservative judge, regardless of denomination, is a sure vote again expanding Roe v. Wade, and most would vote to overrule it. Nor does Catholicism ensure down-the-line conservative social views, as the records of Justices Brennan and Murphy attest. Even Justice Kennedy isn’t especially socially conservative, nor does he appear to be at all influenced by the Church’s absurd, bigoted teaching on homosexuality in his judicial opinions. So I think this apparent pattern in the denominations of Justices appointed by Republican Presidents is probably a coincidence.
As for the Red Mass, I once got more exercised about it than I do today. Frankly, the Justices are there in their capacity as private citizens. It’s a bit of a bizarre little custom (why on earth would Justice Breyer attend a Catholic service?), but it would be hard to characterize any of the current Justices as shrinking violets who are just waiting for the least little gust of clerical disapproval to change their judicial philosophies.
That said, it would be interesting to see the American Church kick its tiresome habit of only emphasizing those social views which are amenable to conservatives for once in its miserable existence. A sermon about the immorality of poverty and the death penalty would be an interesting change of pace. Not holding my breath.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:11 amDangerMouse says:
As is typical, libs can’t stand it when ideas other than their own are presented. Since they view the Supreme Court as their new Infallible Church, they can’t stand it that those who have different political opinions would attempt to influence them (especially outside of the ritual of appellate lawyering). And, of course, it’s even worse since it’s the Catholic Church that’s doing it, which to libs is among the most evil organizations ever because it just won’t bend on matters sexual (just ask Bill Maher). That’s why CNN is basically doing a hit piece on a religious service, which in America should be considered absurd journalism. But since CNN is full of libs, they don’t see the problem.
Nobody put a gun to the justices’ heads telling them to attend. If they attend a Catholic mass, they’re going to hear about the evils of abortion. It happens every Sunday at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, I’ll bet it happens every Sunday there too. It is nothing out of the ordinary.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:17 amJohn Armstrong says:
If the SCOTUS justices can’t handle this mass, are they allowed to go to weekly masses where similar topics my appear by chance? Are they allowed to watch cable news networks in the privacy of their own homes? For justice’s sake why are we not locking these important people into hermetically-sealed boxes between oral arguments to prevent any and all outside information from reaching their ears?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:18 amtraveler496 says:
To those who view this as innocuous–
1) I suspect that you would not think it so harmless if the gathering were organized by a group whose agenda you viewed very unfavorably — perhaps one advocating a superstition-based belief system with which you were less familiar (witchcraft, voodoo, unfamiliar religion X), or radical socialism, or world government. And yet, your stated rationales for viewing it as innocuous would seem to still apply.
2) What do you say to Procrustes?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:22 amDave N says:
traveler496.
If they want to attend, it is their business if they attend (which the point of MY post 5 minutes after Procrustes’). I made a similar point that the editorial page of the NYT and the WSJ are also available. The horror of views being expressed on issues of public concern.
But by all means, erect your strawmen if it makes you feel better.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:28 amAnon21 says:
But I do view the Catholic Church very unfavorably. The world would certainly be better off if it, and all others churches, ceased to exist this instant. But in terms of the evils that the Church does, this is incredibly small-bore. The Justices are all grown-ups, and they’re not going to be influenced in any way by this foolish little ceremony.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:28 amneurodoc says:
“Americans have “been very careful about … not allowing any one tradition or church to become the state church,” he said.”
How does that comport with the efforts of some Catholic prelates in this country who have denied or threatened to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who vote in support of abortion rights? Not exactly the same thing as exhortations to vote for politicians who do support the Church’s position on abortion and other matters, is it?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:45 amfda says:
The “red” signifies the flame of the Holy Spirit. This Red Mass thing has been going on since the 13th c. or so in Europe.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:52 amtraveler496 says:
DaveN, Anon21,
I’m not saying that we should try to stop Justices attending Red Mass (assuming that doing so is within the rules, which is why I’d be interested in a direct response to Procrustes). But I am concerned. Just to be concrete: Would you be similarly unconcerned if the several Justices stopped attending Red Mass and instead started attending an annual Scientology function targeting the legal profession, and kept doing so over a period of years?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:57 amgab says:
Good one Dangermouse — the Catholic church is the last bastion of “not bending” on “matters sexual.” Check with Cardinal Mahoney in LA on his view on matters sexual, especially as regards priests and sex with children.
Perhaps you should spend more time reading the paper and less time in church?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:01 amAnon21 says:
I would be more concerned, because it would suggest that the Justices in question had simply stopped understanding social norms, and what is done by people in their positions. Should adhering to Catholicism (or any other theistic religion) be socially acceptable? In an ideal world, no–it would be treated as a bizarre quirk, and people who subscribed to the notion would be treated about as seriously as Scientologists are in ours. But that isn’t the world we live in, and if a bunch of Justices were to fail to recognize the boundaries of acceptable behavior, that would be cause for extreme concern, quite apart from anything they might be hearing at this hypothetical function.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:02 amDangerMouse says:
gab,
Sorry, but last I checked, even Mahoney, lib that he is, doesn’t believe that sex with children is ok. Unlike the Hollywood limousine libs, though, who are still defending Polanski. And Mahoney will pay eventually for trying to protect the lavender mafia out there. To be blunt, Mahoney doesn’t really represent mainstream Catholicism.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:29 amSarcastro says:
Clearly, Catholicism is no different that Scientology, in either its philosophical breadth or the mainstreamness (mainstremitude? mainstreamossity?) of it’s adherents.
I’ll bet that’s why those Kennedys were so damn conservative.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:37 amCash says:
Name two liberals who can’t stand ideas other than their own being presented. I’ll let you have Barry Lynn as one.
I could just as easily say your statement applies as much, if not more, to rightwingers.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:37 amChrisTS says:
Cash:
I don’t think there is much point in responding to DangerMouse; s/he is not here for rational conversation.
I am surprised, however, to learn from DM that ‘libs’ hate the Catholic Church more than any other. Many leftists are quite happy with Liberation Theology. Many liberals [not so left] applaud the Church’s rejection of capital punishment.
If I, as a liberal, were forced to pick a religious denomination to ‘hate,’ I think I would select one without the Catholic Church’s intellectual heritage.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:43 amArthurKirkland says:
mainstream Catholicism.
Mainstream Catholicism systematically facilitated and concealed sexual abuse of children, then attacked the victims, to safeguard its dogma and dollars.
Organized, premeditated moral depravity in the pursuit of money and prestige.
That the church, or anyone else, believes the church is in any position to lecture credibly on morality reflects grave moral poverty.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:48 amDavid McCourt says:
The ACLU has its own annual red mass, at which Justice Ginsburg, a former bishop of that church, is regularly in attendance, along with several other justices.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:51 amMike says:
I’m more concerned that people with so much power have yet to rid themselves of childish superstitions.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:53 amDangerMouse says:
Arthur,
That false complaint of yours has no pull given Hollywood’s uproar over Polanski. The Church paid millions, and while there were priests who submitted to the demands of the lavender mafia, for the most part there was a cleaning of house and a complete restructuring. But how any lib can complain about the Church, when Polanski is trotted out by the Hollywood elite as not committing “rape-rape” is beyond me. And didn’t Obama’s Child Education Czar guilty of the exact same thing? Failing to turn over child molestors? In fact, even AFTER the priest scandals, Obama’s child education czar continued to protest that he did nothing wrong. Only now is he coming clean, in the face of pressure. The Church was wrong to protect those priests, and Obama’s Education Czar was wrong to do it also.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:55 amyankee says:
This was my initial reaction, but reading the article reveals that this is an “invitation-only event” and only powerful figures like Supreme Court Justices are invited. That lends this whole thing a rather different character.
Whether or not I’m troubled by the Justices attending depends on what’s happening behind those closed doors.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:15 pmDavid McCourt says:
“I’m more concerned that people with so much power have yet to rid themselves of childish superstitions.”
I am an agnostic, but believe that a blythe dismissal of religion as mere “childish superstition” says more about the shallowness of the speaker than of the target. Happily, the “no religious test” provision in the Constitutional protects us against anti-religious bigotry.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:15 pmArthurKirkland says:
I have said that a sentence for Polanski of the maximum minus two weeks (because of prosecutorial misconduct) sounds appropriate.
False complaint? The church facilitated child abuse by shuttling offenders among communities, concealed the child abuse, and attacked the victims from the pulpit and in litigation. Had it been a chain of day care centers, it would have been dismantled. It is lucky it is permitted to exist in the United States. And anyone who looks to that church for moral guidance, ignoring the record, is a dope.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:35 pmjuris imprudent says:
Odd, but Barry Lynn reminds me of those who opposed JFK since he would have to take orders from the Vatican.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
It is no more bigotry for one to dismiss religion as superstition than it is for believers to dismiss the less gullible as damned to hell, or to arrange for children to mouth “under God” in a national pledge.
I, too, am agnostic.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:40 pmHarry Eagar says:
The archbishop is quoted:
Americans have “been very careful about … not allowing any one tradition or church to become the state church,” he said.
That is a spectacular misreading of his own church’s doctrine, which you would imagine he should know something about.
The American Catholic Church has operated as a state church when it could get away with it, and most every other religion I have encountered has been ready and willing to do the same, if it could get away with it.
What preserved religious liberty was not the self-effacement of the churches but a competition so intense that, except in limited areas, no one could get a purchase strong enough to drive the others out.
The only reason freethinkers haven’t been put in camps is that religionists hate each other even more than they hate irreligionists.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:46 pmChrisTS says:
I do not see how anyone’s position on Polanski is relevant to anyone’s — especially anyone else’s — opinion of the Catholic church. I mean, unless we all simply accept DM’s assertions that all liberals support Polanski and hate the Church. Without that silly assertion, the matters are unrelated.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:54 pmChrisTS says:
Perhaps we can agree that there is bad faith on all sides. :-)
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:56 pmArthurKirkland says:
A wise point.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 12:59 pmCliff says:
“It seems to me that Lynn’s concerns are misplaced.”
In order to find Lynn’s views “misplaced” you have to take him, and his views, seriously. And frankly, I don’t. It’s one thing to be skeptical of religion, it’s one thing to be weary of religious influence in the state, and visa/versa, but Lynn’s views are childish. He doesn’t seem to want so much religion and the state to not intermingle as he wants them to exist in separate universes. That isn’t possible, realistic or desirable.
Frankly, Lynn is an idiot. A total intellectual midget. He’s a mindless robot who repeats a mantra again and again without any thought whatsoever. I doubt he even really understands the reason we have the establishment or free exercise clauses in the first place. I usually would try to engage on a substantive level with my opponents, but the guy just isn’t worth it. A bright high school student could destroy any argument the guy makes, and he NEVER goes beyond sloganeering.
Anyhow, I’m not Catholic, but I think the Red Mass is a fine tradition and I applaud the Catholic Church for having it, as well as the Justices, especially Steven Breyer, for attending.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 1:22 pmArthurKirkland says:
A total intellectual midget. He’s a mindless robot who repeats a mantra again and again without any thought whatsoever.
These slurs seem strange if advanced to defend superstition in general and religious dogma in particular.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 1:32 pmLeo Marvin says:
That’s what would be left if you didn’t pretend you could read minds. Think of the time you’d save.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 1:34 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Well said, Cliff. Why would anyone with even a modicum of intelligence take what Lynn says seriously?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 1:41 pmChrisTS says:
That’s what would be left if you didn’t pretend you could read minds. Think of the time you’d save.
Had I read that far, I would have agreed with him.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 1:42 pmVisitor Again says:
DangerMouse: As is typical, libs can’t stand it when ideas other than their own are presented.
_____________
Then why do liberals participate at the Volokh Conspiracy? Are you delusional? Or do you think liberals come here because they’re masochists looking for a little mental torture of the type they can’t stand?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 1:53 pmVisitor Again says:
The Red Mass doesn’t upset me much, given all there is to be upset about, although I do think justices attending a yearly closed doors mass specially conducted by an institution that takes strong positions on issues before the Court so that its leaders may lecture and inform the justices on those issues creates an appearance of impropriety. This is particularly so now that there are so many Catholic justices on the Court. Any other regular litigant–like most large corporations–would highly appreciate this kind of gathering on an annual basis. They do practically the same thing another way, of course.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:02 pmgboinker says:
Red Mass in Los Angeles is this Tuesday.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:16 pmCornellian says:
If I were a Supreme Court justice, I wouldn’t attend, but I wouldn’t care if anyone else did.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:17 pmOren says:
As I recall, they did. On this very blog!
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:26 pmyankee says:
At the very least, a large, powerful institution with a dubious ethical history inviting a bunch of high government officials to a closed-door, invitation-only meeting invites public questioning about what exactly is going on.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:29 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Now we can finally get an answer to the question that I know is on everyone’s mind, namely, whether a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, will reach a better conclusion than the white male Justices who hasn’t lived that life.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:39 pmRepublican says:
The justices are all mature enough and wise enough to attend such events. Quit treating them like three-year-olds. Based on some of the kooky replies here, one would think Justice Breyer was ending his opinions with the Lord’s Prayer.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:53 pmDaniel Chapman says:
This thread is embarassing.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 2:54 pmPerseus says:
And that institution is the modern academy. If there is nothing wrong with exposing justices to judicial philosophies that seek to promote their own (dubiously rational) agendas, exposing them to the teachings of the Catholic Church would seem no worse (and possibly more salutary).
Quote
October 4, 2009, 3:06 pmgerbilsbite says:
Yes, each night we read inspirational passages to our children from Bush v. Gore, and I personally have a framed copy of Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Caperton that I meditate over nightly, seeking answers to his 40 Questions.
And let us say, “oyez.”
Quote
October 4, 2009, 3:44 pmArthurKirkland says:
This thread is embarassing
More or less embarrassing than adults who believe fairy tales?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 3:58 pmMac says:
No Arthur, a group of the American hierarchy in the Church did that. It had nothing to do with safeguarding its dogma either. No connection. Money and reputation, yes, but not dogma. Mainstream Catholicism was just as horrified as you. This is beginning to remind me of the early days in the Civil Rights movement where one actually had to tell people that just because one Black Man did something wrong it does not reflect on all Black Men or make all of them evil. We hear that frequently re the Muslims and terror. Do you disagree that just because the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims not all Muslims, not even the vast majority of them, are terrorists? This is the road you are going down. And, there is considerable evidence that the encouragement of terror is preached from many of their pulpits, however, that does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists or should be treated as such. Or do you disagree and wish to impose the same standard on the Muslim faith as you do the Catholic faith? The Catholic Church certainly never, ever preached that child molestation is OK, as you are implying.
You have seldom or never sat in a Catholic Church if you can say that, nor have you read any Catholic literature such as The National Catholic Reporter or stuff put out by Day’s group, The Catholic Worker, I think it is called. When you are trashing someone, is it asking too much for just a little bit of accuracy?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:14 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
ArthurKirkland:
More or less embarrassing than adults who believe fairy tales?
If we work the way the world works (a basic tenet of materialism, I believe) then the world works the way we work. And since we experience ourselves as working by will, it’s perfectly reasonable to extend that very direct observation of the bit of the world that is us to the world generally. Hence, God as the driver of the parts of the world we don’t drive.
Not a fairy tale at all, although I doubt any religion has the details right.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:18 pmMac says:
Harry Eager,
In reality, the different denominations were the most staunch supporters of not having a State Church. These early Americans came here for religious freedom after having suffered religious persecution in England and elsewhere and, more than any other group, explicitly did not want a State Church. The Catholic Church certainly did not try to act like a State Church. You need to read some real history and not this garbage put out by the Liberal college professor class and their revisionist history of religion. I am trying not to be snarky here, believe it or not, but your statement is so off base and incorrect, it is hard for me not to come across as such.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:22 pmDangerMouse says:
I mean, unless we all simply accept DM’s assertions that all liberals support Polanski and hate the Church.
I don’t know if all libs support Polanski. However, I think it’s safe to say that all libs hate the Church, if by “the Church” you refer to its collective teachings and authority, and aren’t cherry picking doctrines like Nancy Pelosi does. But go ahead and prove me wrong, and defend it right here and right now. Go ahead, libs, and defend the Church from people like Arthur Kirkland. I’m waiting.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:28 pmMac says:
The Catholic Church does not say that, not even about Jews or Muslims or anyone else. You display your ignorance of the Catholic Church and how it differs from Protestant Churches. There were reasons that the Catholics were discriminated against, by Protestants and others, for many, many years in this country. Not sharing this belief was one of them. And, JFK had an uphill battle getting elected due to his Catholicism. Not a proud moment in our country’s history, but I gather you would think it was just a fine thing and that the folks erred in electing him?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:28 pmMac says:
PersonFromPorlock
Your comments were very thoughtful and well said. I agree wholeheartedly and most especially with the statement quoted above.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:33 pmMac says:
Here is some info on Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker. Just one of many, many Catholic charities all over the world who help people in need. Those in the Church, may or may not agree with all or part of what Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker movement stands for, but one has to admire her, I think.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:42 pmMac says:
I will try that link again.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:48 pmAnon21 says:
I’m not familiar with materialism as a philosophy, but I don’t subscribe to this notion. We were produced by natural workings of the world, and the interplay of random chance over eons. From all the evidence available, it appears that “will” is one important element of the human experience that differentiates us from the rest of the world. And there is no reason to generalize this particular difference between humans and the rest of the natural order to the natural order itself; indeed, quite the contrary. It is likely an aberration.
Indeed, never, fortunately enough. My point is with regard to those members of the (American) Church hierarchy who make their political views know to the public; these figures invariably emphasize the Church’s teachings on abortion, contraception, and human sexuality generally to the exclusion of the Church’s other social values. I suspect that many of them do this as a sort of tactical political ploy, to increase the apparent common ground between Catholicism and fundamentalist Protestantism, and in so doing to increase the political influence of the Church. As to the teachings of the thousands of low-level Catholic clerics who work on the parish level, I can’t say; all I can say is that if their views differ from those of their noisier superiors, that isn’t reflected in media coverage of the Church.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 4:52 pmOren says:
That might be the experience, but I’ve seen a human body disassembled can report with certainty that there was no “will” in there.
If there is something transcending materialism that animates the human body (a possibility that I’m not refuting) then it has very little to do with the way a human “works”) and quite a bit more to do with lofty matters.
I also suggest that people of all (or no) faiths sit in on a human dissection sometime. Modernity has put us too far from blood and guts (butchers and MDs in the audience excepted) that sometimes we forget how the human machine works.
Sorry to threadjack, back to your normal political flaming.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:01 pmMac says:
Anon 21, I really think you should give it up.
You are very ill informed about the Church’s social teachings and how often they are promulgated by the Hierarchy. Your suggestion that the Church emphasizes certain teachings “as a sort of political ploy...” reflects a complete lack of understanding of Church dogma and history and is very, very far off the mark. I, as a Catholic, have my own problems with the Church, but you simply do not know what you are talking about and are very far off base.
As to what is or is not reflected in media coverage of the Church, the media are hardly the most unbiased of observers, let alone reporters on the Church.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:03 pmneurodoc says:
Never after the politcal ascent of the Irish in Boston, did the Catholic Church there try to act anything a State Church to the extent it could be accomplished? There have been no attempts by the American Catholic Church to exercise temporal power, or just not in the same way as some countries in Europe, e.g., Italy and Poland, where so great a percentage of the population were practicing Catholics and greater power was attainable? What about the efforts of some Catholic prelates in this country who have denied or threatened to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who vote in support of abortion rights? Not exactly the same thing as exhortations to vote for politicians who do support the Church’s position on abortion and other matters, is it?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:05 pmAnon21 says:
Fixed.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:10 pmjuris imprudent says:
Anon21, I am not a Catholic and I can still say that you are wrong that they downplay the elements you identify.
I give them credit for being against the death penalty and abortion — that is a consistency lacking in most advocates of one or the other.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:23 pmMac says:
neurodoc,
It is completely within the Church’s right and, indeed, duties. The belief in life is a core component of Catholic dogma. If a politician disagrees, fine, but he needs to find himself another church. That is all.
As for exhortations to vote for certain politicians, the Black churches seem to have any number of politicians come and try to get votes who agree with their brand of theology. It seems to me that this is far and away a more blatant example of politicking in churches than any sermon might be. By the way, we do have freedom of religion. If you can’t express your opinions, based on your faith, what is the point of freedom of religion or speech? Are you suggesting that only those who believe in say, the Holy Church of Environmentalism and other such groups are the only ones able to express their beliefs and opinions? The Catholic Church also has to walk a very fine line to avoid troubles with the IRS. Something that the Black churches with blatant promotion of Democrat policies and even politicians in their churches seems not to have worry about.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:24 pmOren says:
I would have no problem if the Church had a blanket policy forbidding communion to anyone that supports abortion. The selective application to politicians is, however, somewhat puzzling.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:27 pmjcm says:
Many liberals [not so left] applaud the Church’s rejection of capital punishment
The Catholic Church does not reject death penalty:
2267
From the Vatican Catechism:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.NT
The Vatican is among the countries with death penalty
BTW: the Catholic Church does not support full creationism either. The Church acknowledges evolution
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:32 pmMac says:
Anon 21,
Sorry, but you are speaking from ignorance both of past and current history of the Church and have a complete lack of knowledge of the role the Church plays in the world today and what the Church does and promulgates. Please educate yourself. If you were comfortable in your knowledge you would not need to start name calling and getting nasty. I do know that what you are saying is factually false. Have any opinion you want, but is it too much to ask you to obtain a modicum of accuracy and factual information?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:33 pmAnon21 says:
Well then, I suppose that settles it. Now perhaps you’ll be kind enough to refresh my memory was to the last time an American politician was denied Communion for supporting the death penalty without regard to Church teachings severely discouraging it use. Since the Church doesn’t shade its public actions for political reasons, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble at all coming up with several such examples. And of course Mac is free to join in as well.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:34 pmMac says:
Oren,
I do not understand why it is puzzling? If, say Tom Dascle, as he did, continued to promote abortion and continued to proclaim himself to be a Catholic, esp. if done to garner votes as, I believe, it often was, then the Church must or at least should act to disassociate herself from said politician. If the Church embraced said politicians, you would say that the Church was hypocritical. As to the selectivity issue, the Church does not run around grilling her congregants on their beliefs. When it is blatant and proclaimed in public, as with a politician, then it becomes a different matter.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:41 pmsubpatre says:
Oren says
The ‘selection’ applies to any and all who act in support of abortions. The denial of communion applies to (known) clinic workers and medical personnel, even to counselors. If that is practice, it would be hypocritical to deny those folks the wafer while allowing the service to legislators that make the practice possible, easier, or more common.
Not claiming agreement with the policy; just saying that I have seen blanket, across-the-board, non-selective denial of church rites to those in the middle class who the church knows engage in strongly condemned practices.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:41 pmDavid Nieporent says:
I don’t understand. You think that the Church not exercising state power requires that the Church stay out of religion, too? Communion is a religious act.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:46 pmSkyler says:
My law school has an annual red mass. I don’t see what the big deal is.
I guess those not liking this are among those that think the First Amendment only applies to people that don’t have to protect it.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:47 pmHarryEagar says:
Mac sez:
‘You need to read some real history and not this garbage put out by the Liberal college professor class and their revisionist history of religion.’
Could I substitute 14 years of Roman Catholic education instead?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:50 pmreadery says:
What’s being proposed here?
Forbid public officials from attending church on their own time least the church say something that might influence the state?
If I honestly held that position, the first thing I’d do would be to try to repeal Martin Luther King Jr., which seems to serve no purpose other than suggest that a church minister ought to be listened to.
And if I weren’t honest, if I didn’t actually object to church officials influencing public debate, but only sought to silence those church officials I disagreed with, I’d raise exactly the sort of bunk that’s being raised here: Blatantly selective objections to public officials attending churches I disagree with, but no problem with influence by churches and church officials I approve of, for the purpose of enhancing my sect’s influence on public officials by using extra-constitutional means to diminish other sects’
This is no more than a claim that public officials shouldn’t be Catholic or that the Catholic church shouldn’t make statements about what it regards as moral issues. It’s nothing more than and attack on the religion clauses of our consitution. It’s a sectarian attempt to discredit the Religious Test for Public Office clause for sectarian gain.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:56 pmreadery says:
Sorry, repeal Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. day as a state holiday.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:57 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Since the Church doesn’t declare the death penalty anathema, it can hardly deny Communion to politicians that support it.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 5:59 pmAnon21 says:
Not entirely, but it does teach that it must only be used as a last resort to protect the community. In the modern United States, it never is a last resort, because murderers can always be imprisoned with sufficient security to ensure that they will never threaten anyone else ever again. Even if there were a few oddball cases in which the death penalty were truly necessary in some sense (master escape artists or something of that sort), there’s no way this restrictive criterion could be stretched to cover all the executions that currently take place in the United States without reducing it to meaninglessness. And death penalty-supporting politicians don’t ever seem to impose this criterion on the penalty’s usage–rather, they advance retributive reasons for capital punishment.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Oren — if the human body was disassembled, then the person was dead, yes? Why would you expect to see a “will” in it?
Not to mention — are only the things you can see, real? Hint — can you see air?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:18 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Catholicism is a silly fairy tale for children, but one so dangerous that it can enslave the minds of sophisticated and highly intelligent individuals with a single exposure? Chesterton would have enjoyed the paradox.
These discussions are always pointless, because so few of you have the slightest idea what Church’s actual theology is, any knowledge of its history, and even less idea of what actually goes on in a Catholic parish. It’s hard to take people seriously when they don’t know the difference between dogma, rules of discipline, hierarchy, and social teachings. Listening to some of you talk about Catholicism is almost painful, kind of like listening to the people who kept trying to explain to Prof. Volokh that zero really is an odd number.
As for denying communion to politicians who support abortions, the definition of a “Catholic” is one who accept’s the Church’s teachings. No one is required to be Catholic. If a prominent politician who belonged to the NAACP came out in favor of reenacting the Jim Crow laws, I suspect the NAACP would object if he tried to claim he had the NAACP’s endorsement. You can’t be a Planned Parenthood board member and go around picketing abortion clinics. The Church doesn’t tell any politician how to vote, any more than the NAACP does. It simply says that if you don’t support the Church’s teachings you aren’t a member. You’re free to run as a member of any of the hundreds of sects that support abortion, or as an atheist or agnostic. You’re just not free to coerce the hierarchy into pretending you’re a Catholic as part of your election campaign.
FWIW, Red Masses are held in lots of American cathedrals (I don’t know if they all have them), and all around the world. It’s part of the tradition that we should pray for those who govern us, a tradition that dates back to the persecuting Roman emperors. The one the Justices and other officials attended at St. Matthew’s is not closed. It’s open, although those who want to attend have to get there very early because seats are reserved for invited guests.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:30 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Only if you plan to have an escape-proof single-person occupancy prison staffed by robots. Otherwise, there’s always a risk they’ll kill someone else again.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:45 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Oren:
Well, even the religious tend to believe that by that point, the spirit has left. But I’ll go you one better: I can look at your living body and see no will — in fact, no person at all — there: just neurons and wet electronics. But you know you’re in there.
My point is that just ‘looking at the body’ (i.e., restricting our view of the world to the material) is an inadaquate observational technique. And once we admit that will is both present in us (we observe it more directly than we can observe any laboratory experiment) and efficient (it has at least the effect that we talk about it), God becomes something of a logical necessity. Or else we have to explain how people work in some way that is fundamentally different from how the rest of the world works.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:46 pmDr. Weevil says:
Even an escape-proof prison isn’t sufficient. I’m surprised that no Muslim group has demanded the release of prisoners from Guantanamo or civilian prisons in return for specific Americans captured somewhere in the world, for instance that soldier who was captured in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. Israel faces that kind of demand all the time, and usually gives in. If they executed the very worst terrorists like Sami Kuntar, they wouldn’t be faced with the shame of trading them for innocent Israelis, or their remains.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:57 pmrpt says:
“SM:
The Church doesn’t tell any politician how to vote, any more than the NAACP does. It simply says that if you don’t support the Church’s teachings you aren’t a member.”
This is true. The problem is that the Catholic hierarchy (as well as Protestant leadership) is very selective about which teachings to apply in this manner, that is, to bar people from sacraments. Generally only abortion and homosexuality are spoken about from the pulpit. Adultery/divorce and violations of various of the other 10 Commandments (or the two great commandments) are generally no problem, applying the IOKIYAAR rule. Witness the silence re Ensign, Sanford, Vitter and Gingrich, the last of whom could not be married in A Catholic church which enforced its own doctrine.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:58 pmAnon21 says:
And I suppose one could equally justify abortion on the grounds that there’s always a chance that complications could develop later in the pregnancy which would kill the mother without leaving time for medical intervention. Pregnancy is a fairly risky medical condition, after all.
Give me a break. Your interpretation of “necessity” reads the teaching out of existence entirely.
Do we also need a supernatural explanation for how extremophiles can survive in conditions that would be utterly fatal to any organism but them? How about a supernatural explanation for the platypus? Or photosynthesis, which is largely unique to plants? If not, why not? Each of these groups of organisms work in ways that are fundamentally different from how the rest of the world works. Why does will need some supernatural explanation? Is it because these other phenomena have or could have scientific/natural explanations? If science had a compelling neurochemical explanation for the human experience of will, would that negate the need for a supernatural explanation to fill the gap?
All of these sorts of arguments are just very poorly thought-out, and rely on such an impoverished view of what evolution through the mechanism of natural selection and the accretion of random chance over the course of billions of years is capable of.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 7:29 pmArthurKirkland says:
The described Catholic position on the death penalty seems to render many politicians and several Supreme Court Justices — at least one of whom has a taste for the death penalty that includes an express tolerance for execution of the innocent — ineligible for communion.
If the denials of communion to some on the basis of abortion views aren’t politically driven poppycock, that is.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 7:53 pmOren says:
Surely it’s just as much a sin to promote abortion privately as it is publicly. I find the distinction puzzling because there is no teaching (to my limited knowledge) than attaches more moral weight to a public transgression than a private one.
Like I said, I have no qualms about dissociating with Daschle, I’m just curious why his offense is a “different matter” than other Catholics that promote abortion.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:02 pmAnonTwentyOne says:
Seems we’ve got a bit of viewpoint discrimination going on here. No matter...
David Nieporent:
And I suppose one could equally justify abortion on the grounds that there’s always a chance that complications could develop later in the pregnancy which would kill the mother without leaving time for medical intervention. Pregnancy is a fairly risky medical condition, after all.
Give me a break. Your interpretation of “necessity” reads the teaching out of existence entirely.
PersonFromPorlock:
Do we also need a supernatural explanation for how extremophiles can survive in conditions that would be utterly fatal to any organism but them? How about a supernatural explanation for the platypus? Or photosynthesis, which is largely unique to plants? If not, why not? Each of these groups of organisms work in ways that are fundamentally different from how the rest of the world works. Why does will need some supernatural explanation? Is it because these other phenomena have or could have scientific/natural explanations? If science had a compelling neurochemical explanation for the human experience of will, would that negate the need for a supernatural explanation to fill the gap?
All of these sorts of arguments are just very poorly thought-out, and rely on such an impoverished view of what evolution through the mechanism of natural selection and the accretion of random chance over the course of billions of years is capable of.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:03 pmLeo Marvin says:
Not so fast. Imagine we’ve got someone on Death Row for an arson that never happened. How can anything but the death penalty protect us when we have no way of knowing who this guy might kill or how he might go about it?
Which is more likely, that someone will escape from a Supermax, or that we’ll execute an innocent defendant?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:18 pmDave N says:
Let’s see, John Ensign is a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; Mark Sanford is an Episcopal; and David Vitter is a Catholic. Newt Gingrich was a Southern Baptist until March 29 of this year, when he became a Catholic.
So what exactly is your point? That the Catholic Church didn’t condemn non-Catholics? Or that it treated a Republican Catholic Senator (Vitter) the way it treated a Democratic Catholic Senator (Kennedy)?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:18 pmMac says:
rpt,
I don’t know where you go to church, but I have never heard a priest preach against homosexuality. Many priests are homosexuals, the theory being, if you are celibate, what difference does it make what your orientation is? The Church has nothing per se against homosexuals, just if they practice it. Ditto heterosexuals prior to marriage. I really don’t want to have this thread deteriorate into a discussion of gay marriage. I am merely trying to set the record straight.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:18 pmMac says:
Harry Eager,
Were those 14 years of Catholic education before or after Vatican II?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:23 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Well, not particularly risky in the U.S. But Catholic doctrine does not allow for abortions on the grounds that pregnancy might be risky.
Catholic doctrine is that the death penalty may be allowed under some circumstances; therefore, voting to allow the death penalty is not a violation of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine is that abortion is never allowed; therefore, voting to allow abortion is a violation. I don’t understand why people who clearly aren’t Catholic and don’t believe in any of this stuff somehow think they can define what the Church should teach.
I don’t know, particularly since you ignore the part about him killing someone else in prison, such as another prisoner or a guard. But what’s the point here? The fact that it’s unlikely that the death penalty will be necessary does not mean it violates Church doctrine to provide for the possibility.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:24 pmMac says:
Oren,
It is and, it is a terrible sin to actually have an abortion. However, Oren, do you think the Church runs around gathering data and wiretaps on its congregants? They are not the FBI, for Pete’s sake. In theory, someone could get denied communion or excommunicated for supporting abortion privately, but that action is open for theological debate as well. However, as a practical matter, how is the Church to know? Private is private. You could have a very liberal senator in the US Congress who is a flaming racist, but if he keeps his opinions private, how are you going to know? As a politician has an ability to effect laws on abortion, it seems to me to be very different from that stand point alone.
AnonTwentyOne,
Not really. We have evolved rather well with that one or most of us would not be here.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:33 pmLeo Marvin says:
I have no idea how the Church interprets it, but it does seem to violate the plain meaning of the doctrine quoted above.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:36 pmLeo Marvin says:
How many murders have there been in a Supermax?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:42 pmneurodoc says:
So in your opinion, those who would argue that to elect a Catholic politician to office is to grant power to the Catholic Church over the lives of non-Catholics are not giving voice to anti-Catholic bigotry? They are just saying what you are saying, except that you approve of what they don’t approve of, that is of Catholic prelates who would deny Communion to Catholic politicians who don’t vote in accord with the Church?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:42 pmAnonTwentyOne says:
Oh, is voting to allow all we’re talking about? Or are there, perhaps, some Catholic governors out there who sign death warrants with the full knowledge that the circumstances do not meet the Church’s last resort/necessity standard (and again, in the modern United States they practically never will)? And if so, have they been denied Communion?
No, no, you misunderstand. I don’t presume to tell the Church what it should teach; I’m merely pointing out that you are completely misrepresenting what the Church does teach in a failed attempt to reconcile the contradictions inherent in the stands taken by high-ranking members of the American hierarchy, and to explain away the Church’s rather venal politicization.
And frankly, if you yourself are a Catholic, and this is seriously how you interpret the Church’s teaching on capital punishment, you need to ask yourself in what circumstance you would actually allow a religious teaching to override your pre-existing political views. And if the answer turns out to be“never, drop the pretense that the Church’s position on abortion has more to do with your views on the subject than your own desire to control others’ sexuality.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:46 pmHarryEagar says:
Mac, both sides of Vatican II.
One of my pet peeves is being told I don’t know what Catholicism is. Did I memorize the Baltimore Catechism for nothing then?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:49 pmneurodoc says:
It’s not legally possible for the Catholic Church, or any other religion, to exercise true “state power” in this country. But it seems to me an attempt on the part of those Catholic prelates who would deny sacraments to Catholic politicians who don’t use the power of their elected offices to effect Catholic dogma to come as close to exercising “state power” as possible in this country.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:51 pmChrisTS says:
Gentlemen:
In fact, even in our exalted nation, pregnancy is risky. It is always risky for the ‘unborn,’ — as some like to say — particularly in the first weeks. It is also always risky for the pregnant woman. I cannot believe I have to point this out to educated, adult people. I find it depressing enough to have students who think pregnancy is a matter of getting big for awhile and then dropping an infant into someone’s waiting hands.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:53 pmChrisTS says:
Laura:
About the visible air example. I know what you are trying to get at [I think I do], but this is not a good example. Air is, in fact, discernible both through our ordinary sensory functions and through experimental techniques.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 8:55 pmChrisTS says:
mac and others:
Please, let’s be a bit careful with our language. No one “promotes abortion.” Many people think the decision about terminating a pregnancy should be (with varying limitations) left to medical professionals and their patients. That is not to ‘promote abortion.’
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:01 pmneurodoc says:
What legislation “supports” abortion, that which doesn’t make it legally impermissible and attach penalties to it? A vote against legislation implementing anti-abortion measures for all, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is a vote that “supports” abortion and is no different from providing abortion services? I think not.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:05 pmBrent says:
They might hear something phrased in a way you might never hear it in the court, but it might become a lingering factor in their decisions. …
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Reading the paper, watching TV, surveying blogs, having conversations — every Justice does that, and that might become a lingering factor in their decisions.
Barry Lynn is not the stupidest person on the planet. But this blurb of his proves that Barry Lynn obviously believes that any person disagreeing with him is the stupidest person on the planet.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:10 pmneurodoc says:
So, in the spirit of caveat emptor, anyone voting for a Catholic politician should be willing to accept the Church’s teachings on abortion, contraception, reproductive rights, stem cell research, etc., since a Catholic politician who doesn’t vote consistent with those teachings may face sanctions by the Church, including denial of Communion, maybe even excommunication no matter that they may personally disapprove abortion, not employ contraception, etc. Non-Catholics either accept that and don’t let it influence their votes or they are bigots?
BTW, interesting in this context that you should bring up Chesterton, who wasn’t exactly a pluralist, especially with respect to Jews.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:17 pmJay says:
Anon21–There are other reasons someone might oppose abortion besides it either being the “Church’s position” or wanting to “control others’ sexuality,” whatever that means. Regardless of one’s religious views, one might find abortion immoral because it is the taking of innocent life.
I’m sure you view these people as either lying (if they’re men) or having a false consciousness (if they’re women), such that their real aim is to “control others’ sexuality,” but intentionally blinding yourself to the motivations of those you disagree with is rarely an effective debating technique.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:26 pmDavid Nieporent says:
I don’t know why this is complicated. Voting against a politician based on his policy positions is not bigotry, whether those policy positions come from his religion or his college professors or from his flipping a coin. A person who doesn’t vote consistent with those teachings isn’t Catholic, except by heritage. Voting against him based on his heritage rather than his positions would indeed be bigotry.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:34 pmneurodoc says:
And most who are “pro-choice” do not find abortion “immoral” or view it as “the taking of innocent life,” while recognizing that others do. Also, some may see matters differently when the life of the mother is at risk, when the foetus has major malformations, when the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, etc.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:35 pmChrisTS says:
Jay:
Reading the rest of the thread might help, here. At some point, we got off onto the topic of the Catholic Church and its political activity. This is not a thread (much less an OP) about abortion as a general legal or moral concern.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:37 pmChrisTS says:
David Nieporent:
I think Neurodoc’s point was that Sandy, et alia, might want to think twice about arguing that Catholic candidates should expect to choose between excommunication and their own political positions.
In other words, he was trying to point out that those who argue that politicians should hold to their denomination’s line must recognize that such a view would lead to bigotry on the part of voters.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:42 pmneurodoc says:
I tried to add as an edit, but didn’t succeed, that some see differently abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, when the foetus has major malformations, when the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, etc., and are not willing to accept blanket bans on abortion.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:44 pmneurodoc says:
Tell us, John Kerry, who some Catholic clergy would deny Communion, is or isn’t Catholic?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:47 pmChrisTS says:
neurodoc:
Thanks.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 9:48 pmMac says:
I don’t know. Answer the following questions. What is a sacrament? Why did God make you?
What order of nuns did you have? (The last question is not in the Baltimore Catechism, of course.)
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:16 pmMac says:
Harry Eager,
PS. You only have to write the answers once, not 100 times.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:17 pmMac says:
If a Catholic politician is elected to office, he should be advertising his beliefs, if he is a Catholic. That is not giving the Vatican power over non-Catholics if said politician is honest about his beliefs. One would hope that a Liberal politician would state his beliefs clearly as well so the voters know exactly what they are getting. If a Liberal politician lies and acts conservative to get elected and then does what George Soros wants, that would be just as bad. We all have beliefs, even the non-religious. It is being honest about them when running for office that matters.
Also, FYI, there is considerable debate in the Church whether or not a cleric should deny Communion. for the reasons you mentioned. However, there are those who trade on their Catholicism to get the Catholic vote and then act in complete opposition to Church teachings. John Kerry comes to mind.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:24 pmMac says:
I never used the words “promotes abortion” did I? I think you are confusing me with someone else. However, it is late, so who knows?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:27 pmMac says:
Looking at Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and many others, I wouldn’t be too worried if I were you, neurodoc.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:29 pmMac says:
I would, however, question the guys honesty and integrity. As I said, some like to parade their Catholicism to get votes. If they are totally out of the mainstream of Catholic teaching and still claim they are Catholic, I’d be worried. No one forces them to be a Catholic. It’s kind of like a Jew in New York running as a devout Jew who believes in Jesus Christ. Wouldn’t trust him either.
Catholicism is not a cafeteria religion. Many others are and they should join one of them.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:33 pmRicardo says:
Given the well-known details of JFK’s personal life, I think it’s fair to say he had a somewhat flexible relationship with Catholic theology. Justice Scalia, no anti-Catholic bigot himself, argues that Catholics who embrace the Vatican’s teachings on the death penalty should not become federal judges since they would be required by law to affirm death sentences that run counter to Vatican teachings and that such affirmation would be repugnant to a strict reading of the Vatican teachings. He resolves this conflict by openly rejecting the Vatican’s anti-death penalty position.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 10:52 pmneurodoc says:
Where was Clarence Thomas? Did Stephen Breyer go as a proxy for Thomas?
BTW, who besides the Justices are invited? All federal court judges? Members of Congress?
Is there a sermon, and if so, is the text available?
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:15 pmneurodoc says:
Abortion, contraception, stem cell research, and the like weren’t political issues back in 1960, let alone the hot button ones that they are today. If they had been at the time, though, then if Kennedy had not voted in lock-step with the Church’s positions on those issues, you would have thought it “just a fine thing” to vote against him for that reason and that those “folks erred” who did vote for him notwithstanding his professed religion?
Again, in your view it would have amounted to anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of individuals to vote against JFK if they expected that once in office he would vote the Church’s position and those positions were contrary to their own? I thought the bigotry was baseless presumption that as a Catholic JFK would surely take his marching orders from the Vatican, but you seem to think he should have been committed to do so or not identify as a Catholic.
Quote
October 4, 2009, 11:33 pmKirk Parker says:
Huh? The poor have a lot to deal with; the least you can do is refrain from casting aspersions on them...
Harry,
Jeez, dude, I’d say that a lot more quietly, and w/o attaching your name to it–what if those evil religious guys decide to hold a truce for a day so they can concentrate on taking you out???
Quote
October 5, 2009, 12:58 amKirk Parker says:
Oh good grief, Oren. You’re generally a sensible fellow, even when I completely disagree with you. :-) But your 5:01pm is embarassingly juvenile. I will just paraphrase here (badly, it’s all I’m capable of) C.S. Lewis’ response to the Soviet cosmonaut who returned from space and announced he hadn’t manage to spot God: “Actually, the disturbing thing would be if he had found ‘God’ in space–what kind of God would that be?”
Your thinking that you could see the “will” as if it were an organ or physical structure is no more sophisticated than the Azande that Evans-Pritchard studied almost a century ago.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 1:02 amEMG says:
It’s a wonder that Catholic apologists don’t realize how cultish and unconvincing they sound, responding to every objection, no matter how finely pointed, with a canned admonition to study more deeply the teachings of “THE” Church in order to become enlightened. It’s simply impossible, of course, that the result of such study could be wholehearted rejection. Invincible ignorance and all that.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 1:42 amJay says:
“Jay:
Reading the rest of the thread might help, here. At some point, we got off onto the topic of the Catholic Church and its political activity. This is not a thread (much less an OP) about abortion as a general legal or moral concern.”
Yeah, I got that. I wasn’t trying to argue the morality of abortion qua abortion, but respond to the earlier comment’s statement that opponents of abortion either come to that view through blind adherence to their faith or malign intent to oppress women. That there is a third (at least) reason to oppose abortion changes the calculus that comment proposes for Catholic politicians significantly, since it would no longer be apparent that a Catholic politician who deviated from church teaching on some other issue but opposed abortion was a hypocrite who sought only to control others’ sexuality.
To neurodoc, obviously I am aware that people who are pro-choice usually don’t find abortion immoral (although I thought that was the whole “safe, legal, and rare,” rationale?). My point was that many pro-life people find it immoral for reasons unrelated to adherence to a particular theology.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 4:24 amArthurKirkland says:
Good point, Jay. A pro-life position based on reason is reasonable, and might be an ingredient in a better debate concerning our society’s treatment of the subject.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 4:53 amJoe T. Guest says:
I’m glad Barry Lynn is on the case. Otherwise, those fiendish papists would be running the country. Everybody knows how easy it is to get Supreme Court justices to do exactly what you tell them to do after you give them a 15 minute lecture based mostly on supernatural considerations...
Quote
October 5, 2009, 5:17 amPersonFromPorlock says:
AnonTwentyOne:
You misunderstand “fundamental.” The effort to understand the world is based on a presumption that everything — thermophiles, oenophiles and supernovae — ‘works the same way’ and that that way can be described as a single system. The examples you cite as being fundamentally different are in fact only trivially so.
And there is nothing “supernatural” about considering the will as an objective phenomenon: we observe it, just as we observe the results of laboratory experiments. If anything, experimental results about the nature of reality are less sure than evidence drawn from self-experience because we have no certitude that the laboratory is there.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 6:04 amChrisTS says:
MAC:
Mac: Oren,
I do not understand why it is puzzling? If, say Tom Dascle, as he did, continued to promote abortion and continued to proclaim himself to be a Catholic, esp. if done to garner votes as,
and neurodoc followed your lead
I was not tryng to jump on you; it’s just misleading language.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 8:55 amOren says:
No, but if it becomes public knowledge that so-and-so paid for an abortion for his girlfriend (just theorizing here) that seems to be equivalent to a politician abstractly supporting abortion. The fact that the former gets a pass but that latter doesn’t is what puzzles me, since they ought to be theologically-equivalent transgressions.
You failed to read the subtext. Of course the will isn’t physical. My point was to argue (in absurdity) against the notion that the way humans work has something to do with God makes no sense. The functioning of a clock is entirely independent of the nature (or existence even) of a clockmaker — gears and levers (and enzymes) function exactly identically irrespective of how and why they were created.
You can’t get to a “will” by observing anything physical, including human beings. That was my only point.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 9:16 amKirk Parker says:
But it’s a straw point–or did I miss the part where someone where did assert that physical observation might discover the “will”?
Quote
October 5, 2009, 11:15 ammidasear says:
I assume you mean fairytales about the Roman Catholic Church’s closed-door masses, weekly anti-abortion sermons, routine denial of communion to pro-Choice politicians, and extensive record of appearances as a litigant before the US Supreme Court?
People believe all sorts of incredible things that bear only the most minimal connection to reality.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 11:29 amOren says:
You might start by reading the comment to which I was responding.
As I understand it, the Catholic Church does not deny communion to average folks that have had or promoted an abortion. Joe AverageCatholic can pay for his teenage daughter to have an abortion (promoting abortion in the most literal sense) without hearing peep about it. His daughter can probably get the wafer too.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 12:27 pmSeamus says:
Where did you get the idea that the former gets a pass? Canon 914 of the Code of Canon Law (“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”) clearly applies to them.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 2:52 pmSandy MacHoots says:
If you’re a single-issue “pro-choice” voter you shouldn’t vote for anyone who opposes abortion, Catholic or not. If a politican advertises himself as a Catholic, you need to take that into account, just as if he announced he was an Objectivist. If you’re a single-issue anti-“affirmative action” voter you shouldn’t vote for NAACP members. It’s not bigotry merely to vote against people who disagree with you.
Everyone sins. Sinners get communion. Denying communion is a very serious step to take. What makes abortion different from nearly all the other sins is that it kills innocent people — millions and millions of them. That makes it a vastly more terrible thing than adultery or stealing or lying. I’m not aware of the Church denying communion to people who advocate for civil rights for gays.
Several folks here seem puzzled about the distinction between sinning and publicly advocating sinning. Those who confess their mortal sins (public or not) and show repentance can get communion. If they don’t confess and repent a mortal sin, they’re not permitted to take communion — assuming that the priest knows for certain what happened. If they take communion without confession and repentance, or if their “repentance” is fake, they’ll be required to deal with a Higher Authority down the line. If at any point a public abortion advocate admits his sin and shows repentance, he gets communion. The problem with legislators who vote in favor of abortion funding or against restrictions is that this is a continuing sin. They aren’t admitting sin and asking for forgiveness, they’re encouraging others to sin by providing the means to do so, just as much as if they were selling assault weapons to terrorists. If I’ve murdered 100 people I can be forgiven. But if I refuse to stop arguing in favor of killing more, I can’t.
Uh, Planned Parenthood? There are lots of population control folks who advocate abortion as a tool for family planning. If I advocate for a strong view of gun ownership as a civil right, I think it’s fair to say that I’m “promoting” gun ownership. To say that one is against abortion but in favor of “choice” is like saying I’m opposed to people owning other people (slavery) but that they should have the right to do so if they want to. Promoting “choice” is only good if the things chosen are not evil.
Apparently. Unless you got a Memorization Prize or something. Me, I once got a picture of Jesus with eyes that glow in the dark.
Re not finding the will in a dissected body: When I was a kid I found a broken radio. I took it all apart, piece by piece. There were no voices in it. This proves conclusively that there are no such things as radio broadcasts.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 3:37 pmLeo Marvin says:
What did you expect? It was broken.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 3:46 pmOren says:
Except that this Canon appears not to be enforced except for politicians.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 4:34 pmOren says:
It is indeed puzzling, since I’m not aware of any Church doctrine that states that a sin is ameliorated just because it took place in private and no one found out.
So, in essence, having an abortion (which never a ‘continuing sin’) can never result in loss of communion. That is, in fact, quite bizarre.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 4:46 pmChrisTS says:
a sin is ameliorated just because it took place in private and no one found out.
HALLEIUJAH!
Quote
October 5, 2009, 5:22 pmChrisTS says:
Thanks for the laugh.
More to the point, I suppose, is why anyone thought the voices heard over radio would be housed inside it.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 5:24 pmChrisTS says:
Even more bizarrely, one could have one hundred abortions and be forgiven, but not speak out or vote against abortion and not be forgiven. Kind of a raw deal for you men.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 5:30 pmChrisTS says:
.
No, they argue for permitting abortions in case of undesired pregnancies, rape, etc. This all goes under the rubric of ‘family planning’ because of the history of the reproductive rights movement and because the medical professionals who provide abortions usually belong to the same group that provides ob/gyn services.
Really? A position on the right to bear arms is equivalent to the view that everyone ought to be armed?
This is too disingenuous. Or, are you genuinely not aware of the fallacy of equivocation and the basic rules of good analogy?
So much for voting rights.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 5:39 pmChrisTS says:
Just in case you cannot work it out.
I am ‘against’ arm amputations because I prefer a world in which no one no one needs to have an arm amputated. I believe that everyone should have the right to choose amputation.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 5:44 pmHarryEagar says:
OK, Sandy, I confess. I’ve been reading that liberal Acton.
The one the church silenced.
Not only did I memorize the Baltimore Catechism, I’ve studied what the church did in practice.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 8:55 pmDr. Weevil says:
ChrisTS:
In writing about how “one could have one hundred abortions and be forgiven”, you (like some others here) are confusing two issues: whether someone is or is not a sinner is not the same question as whether he is or is not a Catholic in good standing. You can be a Catholic in good standing — a believing member of the church — and still be headed straight to Hell for your sins. You can also be a bad Catholic without being a particularly bad person: if you haven’t killed anyone or committed any other mortal sin, but insist on disagreeing with the clear teaching of the Church, you are not in fact a Catholic and should stop pretending to be one. Excommunication does not sentence someone to Hell.
Similarly, someone who explicitly does not believe in being “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent” — e.g. an atheist who can’t subscribe to the “reverent” part — can hardly claim to be a Boy Scout in good standing, even if he is on the whole a better person than many boys who try, and fail, to live up the 12-fold ideal.
The Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, and other religious, political, and social groupings have a right to define their fundamental beliefs and expel those who refuse agreement. To take another example, the Democratic Party had a perfect right to expel Phil Gramm for voting with the Republicans too many times. They probably did think that made him a bad person, but such a judgment is not logically necessary. He refused, rightly or wrongly, to follow (big-D) Democratic principles, and they booted him out.
Quote
October 5, 2009, 9:08 pmneurodoc says:
Really, “There are lots of population control folks who advocate abortion as a tool for family planning.”? (italics added)
If, as you say, there are lots of them, would you name a few and tell us how we might confirm that they do indeed advocate abortion as a tool for family planning. Do you have anything to support your contention that Planned Parenthood does so with any evidence?
(BTW, do you believe that the use of contraception is somehow immoral, and more importantly would you try to limit or deny others access to contraception, as the Church has tried to do? How about Plan B, would you want that kept off the market no matter whether or not it posed a health risk for the woman?)
Quote
October 6, 2009, 6:33 amPubliusFL says:
Except that this Canon appears not to be enforced except for politicians.
How would you know? Would you expect cases involving non-politicians to be announced via press release? Doesn’t it stand to reason that cases involving public actions of politicians are inherently more public in nature and more likely to make the news than the case of Joe AverageCatholic paying for an abortion for his daughter?
Quote
October 6, 2009, 7:45 amChrisTS says:
Dr Weevil:
No. I was responding to a line of argument developed by others.
Quote
October 6, 2009, 7:40 pmChrisTS says:
HarryEagar:
So, all these years you mistakenly believed you were a Catholic? Now that you have learned the Truth, whatever will you do?
P.S. We lapsed Unitarians are pretty open on the whole dogma thing. (Just keep the trinitarian stuff on the down low.) Welcome! :-)
Quote
October 6, 2009, 7:44 pmLeo Marvin says:
Coming from the corner of Judaism so lax it’s often compared to Unitarianism, I’m surprised such a thing as “lapsed Unitarian” is even possible.
Quote
October 6, 2009, 10:08 pm