Sotomayor would be sixth Catholic justice

Church teaching is clear on Catholics in public office. That will be the test of whether or not she is Catholic.

What is her position on gay rights,especially gay marriages?

Honestly, who cares? I'm not Catholic, but really, I don't think that their religion really matters unless they are making woodenheaded decisions. If it becomes obvious that a justice is using their place of power to promote their religion, then they need to be questioned, but I hope that most of them use their best judgement on a case to case basis.

Yeah for the possibility of more of the entrenched bigotry, papal-ass-kissing, and out dated ideas pushed on the American people by the brainwashed adherents of one of the most hate-filled and archaic religions of the world. This is the first time Obama has left me disappointed.

I wonder if after the obvious papal agenda (criminalizing abortion and all forms of contraception, outlawing homosexuality and gay marriage, making the ridicule and persecution of anyone not worshiping the pope socially acceptable; if they'll start to bring back the good old Christian values of yesteryear - you know antisemitism, slavery, and persecuting scientists if they dare nay say the "Holy See".

KJR is exactly right - All Roman Catholics must pledge everlasting allegiance to Rome. This is why Roman Catholics should never be elected to any public office.

I'm certain she has a great mind and work ethic, but rather than being put on the bench, Justice Sotomayor is being put on display. It is sexual-ethno-religious politics, cynical but worthy of Lenin.

Ask yourself; why does it matter to social liberals when someone was "raised" a Catholic? Give up? Because they can now seek benefit by calling her a Catholic when in reality they want nothing to do with people from that religion.

Sotomayor is typical of a post-modern American woman; single, divorced, anit-traditional family and in the ruling center of the relativist world. She is a cultural Catholic, that's all. Not a bad thing, but let's be honest about what Justice Sotomayor is and validate it by her track record..

If Justice Sotomayor were a "practicing" Catholic, the President, who by the same logic must be an athiest since he was "raised" an athiest only to become a black-nationalist in a Chicago church, would never have selected a "practicing" Catholic.

Katie bar the door, the chickens are turning around home to roost
T.J. Fod

Please leave religion out of it.

If she's pro-choice, she can't call herself a Catholic.

I just thank god she is a woman and it is also nice that she is hispanic. Morality is something best left to the self-righteous hypocrite. Life doesn't begin or end, it is eternal. Self-importance is a form of insanity. Wake up people. God didn't appoint man to tyranny, man took that upon himself.

Morality, religion, and POLICY MAKING should be left out of the Supreme Court. And while it is nice that she is hispanic and a woman, I am both too, this should not guide her decisions. For example, if the constitution says that there should be no discrimination on the basis of race, white is a race, and white people should not be discriminated when it comes to jobs either. There is no good or necessary dsicrimination.

Padriac, it's ironic you view Catholics as bigoted. Your comments are beyond bigoted, they're reprehensible and hate-filled. They have no place in plural society.

Learn to practice what you preach.

She appears to be extremely well qualified for this position. Princeton doesn't hand out summa cum laude degrees to just anyone. She brings a unique perspective on crime and punishment, coming from the Bronx and working as a DA. In many ways she lived the life experiences that the President sought after Columbia in urban Chicago. She has also managed to accomplish all of this while managing a chronic illness throughout her whole life. Let's not speculate on her religion. It seems as though the Spanish Inquisition is alive and well, except that it is Catholics in public life who are subjected to slings and arrows from both the left and the right.

The Democrats may want to be careful for what they wish for. In my unofficial survey, most immigrants of a latin background call themselves Catholic and tend to be pro-life. I think it would indeed be a wonderful balance to have a woman appointed to the Supreme Court who is pro-life. Celebrate diversity!

She is a fallen away Catholic which is completely different. She only attends 'family church events'. Catholic teachings are completely in agreement with true Constitutional law. Abortion (murder), fetal stem cell research (destruction of foundation of human life which zero good has come and never will), homosexual unions (an abomination in all 3 major religions and an affront to human dignity), and cloning (playing God and damaging Creation) are all rightfully forbidden. The founding fathers knew that truth is everlasting and what was wrong in Christian government back then, remains wrong today.

" quotes a White House official saying, "Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events."

OK, let's analyze that quote. "raised as a Catholic." I presume that means she was baptized a Catholic, so there would be a baptismal record somewhere in da Bronx. Official Church teaching: unless you leave the church by some official, public action, you are still in, no matter how 'sinful' one might be. "attends church for family celebrations and other important events." important events...hmmm, would that include Easter and Christmas? But every Sunday we celebrate the 'important events of the life, teachings, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, which are much more important than the SCOTUS.

David Gibson, also at Beliefnet, suggests there may be a strategic reason for Sotomayor to downplay her faith affiliation:

"And Cathy Lynn Grossman, blogging for USA Today, makes a similar prediction:
[now, let us assume for the moment that Grossman is Cathy's married name]
"Next up: Expect her nomination to re-ignite the ongoing Catholic blogosphere wars over who is Catholic enough. If confirmed, Sotomayor, who grew up in Catholic schools in the Bronx, would be the sixth Catholic on the high court. It may be that her life experiences will align her with the social justice issues pushed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on race, poverty, immigration and economic issues. But for some outspoken Catholics, the 'life' issues -- abortion, family planning, so-called 'conscience clauses' for health workers, embryonic stem cell research and end-of-life choices -- are the litmus test.""

But what lefties don't realize is that all of the above are social justice issues. The only difference between being pro-life/anti abortion and the rest of the issues named is that, unless you get to the post-abortion, born phase, then you can't have the rights to be free from poverty, to immigrate, for the races to live in peace together, economic justice, etc.

Pro-life: the first and most important social justice issue; all the rest derive logically from it.

The question will be asked, are you a Bill Donahue/Ray Flynn catholic or like the majority of those who call themselves catholic have an open mind. Needless to say those who are in the Donahue/Flynn camp will pass judgement and claim she is not catholic while the rest us will sigh and say get over it.

stirfry@4:42 wrote:
"KJR is exactly right - All Roman Catholics must pledge everlasting allegiance to Rome. This is why Roman Catholics should never be elected to any public office."
Stirfry, there is a US political party of the past, from the 1840's and 50's, which you should try to revive. It was called the Know-nothings, with your exact sentence as their platform. In fact, your comment sounds like you should be the Grand
Wizard of that party.

Please leave religion out of it.

"Please leave religion out of it." writes "egghead" @ 5:04pm---on the articles of faith, religion blog, no less. "der," as we used to say.

However, as an arch conservative, so far, i have heard no disqualifying facts about Judge Sotomayor's record, except that she is a Yankees' fan, which does make me question her sanity, her love for bullies against underdogs, etc.

Leftie Liberals, have you ever noticed? Justices Breyer and Ginzburg were confirmed with almost every republican vote, because they were not personally corrupt and had graduated from law school, so the custom was for the minority party to 'hold their nose' and vote for the president's nominee, which i'm sure will happen this time too.

But was/is this courtesy extended back by the dems to the gop? Nope, because then they bare their true ideological visciousness. Why? because in general, dems are less religious, they think this world is all there is, so it's worth fighting more visciously for, whereas yes, conservatives put up a little half-hearted resistance, but in the end, they know the next life is more important, so God will punish the evildoers.

Why do we have to hear these religious concerns all the time?
The Constitution provides (Article VI, Section 3) that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Supreme Court has reiterated (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961) that this is still a valid prohibition, and the First Amendment is still as definitive as Justice Black and Douglas insisted for years. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy should have the power to instantly halt any questioning on this topic unless the nominee has violated those provisions in prior court opinions. It is not the Court of the Inquisition determining the qualifications of this nominee.

Padriac needs to take his name calling and religion bashing to the back alleys where he belongs.
Catholics are the cross section of the USA. I am a practicing Catholic. Judge Sotomayor is diametrically opposed to everything I believe. President Obama has the duty to appoint a Justice that enforces the Law, not create her own law.
If Judge Sotomayor is approved by the Senate, I expect her to become better then she is today. I don't expect her to change her beliefs but I would expect her to listen to her peers on the Supreme Court and from the attorneys that appear before the Court .
I expect any Justice to rule based on the Laws of the Land.

Predictably, the right wing is out in force, helping the Gospel once again become used rather shamelessly as a commercial for the Republican Party.

As if anywhere in the Nicene Creed it read, "we believe in using abortion or same-sex marriage as wedge issues against Democratic candidates who might conceivably be closer to the Gospel on social justice issues than their Republican opponents."

While I doubt they'll succeed in derailing Sotomayor's nomination, I have every confidence they'll try their best to do one of two things: tell her how to rule once she's appointed, or question her Catholicism if and when it appears she may not be as conservative as they are.

I'm a bit uneasy about Sotomayors practice of her faith. If the White House release is accurate in saying that she attends certain family functions , does this mean she only goes to church occasionally? I can only hope that the early press releases were in error.

"Catholics" do not pledge allegience to Rome. Most Catholics are so ignorant of the Christian faith, left-wing liberals will have nothing to worry about with Catholics. It's as good as having an Agnostic or an Atheist in office. It's the real Christians that one has to be concerned about. Most Catholics = clueless; most church leaders = gutless. Frankly, the Knights of Columbus have more smarts than all of them put together. The Knights rock.

Cradle - I think you are too cynical about the Church (as I once was with regard to its authority), and I hope you spend more time focusing tradition AND scripture, and come back to support her authority...

BUT, I will agree with most, if not all of what you said in #23 and it is a damn shame.

mikegilbo @7:58 wrote:

"The question will be asked, are you a Bill Donahue/Ray Flynn catholic or like the majority of those who call themselves catholic have an open mind. Needless to say those who are in the Donahue/Flynn camp will pass judgement and claim she is not catholic while the rest us will sigh and say get over it."

Mike, no offense to you or Bill or Ray, but the important thing is to be a Jesus/Peter
and the other Apostles/ down to including John XXIII, Mother Theresa, John Paul II, Benedict XVI Catholic Christian, all of whom did or would have roundly condemned abortion, while all of the above would have been merciful to the abortion-ers, if they were sorry for their undoubted sins.

N.Observer wrote @8:35 pm:

"As if anywhere in the Nicene Creed it read, "we believe in using abortion or same-sex marriage as wedge issues against Democratic candidates who might conceivably be closer to the Gospel on social justice issues than their Republican
opponents."

Of course, N., you are literally correct, no mention of abortion in the Nicene creed. They didn't think they would have to be explicit about everything which every Christian of common sense, then and now, took for granted, that when you agreed to "I believe in God, the Father Almightey, Creator of Heaven and Earth, that all except the fool would know that Creator meant 'of all life, vegetable, animal, and human, especially human, which i have made in my image and likeness, so don't kill any of the above unless they try to kill you, which i don't think any pre born baby will try to do.' But you should know that creeds are intentionally too short to include such obvious common sense details.

Again, N, same sex marriage in Nicene Creed? No, of course not, just like the Nicene Fathers didn't feel it was necessary to explicitate that 2+2=4. By using the word "Creator/Maker," they were referring to that fellow in Genesis who created the institution of marriage, and said man and woman shall leave his/her family, and cleave to his [opposite sex] spouse. The Fathers of the Council of Nicea were too sane to predict the like of planned antiparenthood, aclu, and you. shudder

"If she's pro-choice, she can't call herself a Catholic."
Posted by Shecky May 26, 09 05:04 PM

Yeah, Shecky, she can. Even without your permission.

Hey KJR ...
Her duties as a SC Judge are to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the issues brought before her. I recall when JFK was running for President there was a tremendous fear that he would be directed by the Pope.
Quite frankly, the Papacy can take those rules and shove it where angels fear to tread. As a US Supreme Court Judge, as US President, etc, the job is to lead the country based on what is best for the country and reflects the needs of the country, NOT to govern/rule/judge based on the dictates of Rome. The people in those leadership positions, as Kennedy espoused, should run their lives by their faith, run the country as an American.

Heya ZG...
If you look at it, Padraic is simply summarizing a portion of the history of the RCC. It isn't hate filled or bigoted. What Padraic says covers ... well... "criminalizing abortion and all forms of contraception, outlawing homosexuality and gay marriage" are active goals of the modern RCC. On top of that, 'the good old Christian values of yesteryear - you know antisemitism, slavery, and persecuting scientists if they dare nay say the "Holy See"' can all be backed up with real, historical fact, even more modern and better documented than the events purported to occur in the RC Bible. It's not bigotry, it is history, past and present.

"I expect any Justice to rule based on the Laws of the Land."
Posted by Educated in a Catholic School May 26, 09 08:23 PM

Really? Does that include Scalia and Thomas, or only liberal justices? In fact, in interpreting the Constitution, justices do create law by striking down that which is unconstitutional. Hence, school desegregation, an end to religious observances in public schools, the right to privacy expressed in Griswold and Roe, marriage equality in Massachusetts and elsewhere. These addressed unconstitutional provisions of then-existing law. Now, as a liberal, she is far more likely to listen to her peers than Scalia and Thomas, two doctrinaires who rule reflexively rather than legally when it suits their political ends. As for KJR's "church teaching on Catholics in public office", this is the United States of America. It is not the Vatican or some little dogmatic fiefdom of the Vatican. Church teaching is irrelevant to civil government here, and any public official who takes orders from the Vatican (or any other religious group) on public policy matters should be removed from office. Such officials have no place directing policy in a pluralistic, religiously neutral society.

Veriseeker, I would contend that prior to viability abortion is not murder since the potential life has no chance of life without the mother. Homosexuality is only an abomination if you religious and not homosexual. The religions are lagging behind science in understanding that homosexuality is a state of being, not a choice. They can no more decide to not be homosexual than you would try to be not heterosexual, assuming you are. Cloning and stem cell research are in their infancy with tremendous potential for beneficial results, regardless of your blanket statements, which have no basis in fact... try talking to a scientist about the things that might be accomplished. Think of how far medicine has come in the last couple of hundred years and know that many of the things we take for granted now including vaccines, were once considred heretical and required rebelliousness to first explore. Time to go find the twelfth century again, it misses you.

gaudette
PLEASE stop referring to the liberal side of things as "lefties." I am a lefty. The nuns couldn't change my hand of preference, but that does not mean that I should be associated as a liberal. Besides, Reagan and both Bush's were lefties. So was Gerald Ford. But, both would be more accurately described as righties, until someone saw them sign a document. *Grins*
Regarding the point of yours I really find offensive... I don't give a flying hoot what the RCC says. You know some of my history. What is really revolting, aside from the molestation, is that the officiant at my confirmation was none other than Cardinal Law. How is that for stomach turning?
I left the Church in heart and practice 20 years ago. You claim that unless I go for some paperwork or official ceremony I am still Catholic? How revolting? How insulting? The RCC can think whatever it wants, it is an archaic throwback to a bygone era, anyway, and irrelevant to my future, after trashing my past. You have the gall to claim that because I haven’t had some ceremony I am still Catholic? I am sorry, but I left the Church, regardless of what the church teaches, preaches or claims. Who is the Church to claim rights to me in any way? I choose to leave that corrupt institution. I am sorry, normally I am more literate than this… I am currently beyond words to express my outrage.

It is interesting President Obama feels he has nominated one who shares his leftist ideology. He surmises that such is due to her "life experiences" which make her philosopically congruent with the left. I also had Puerto Rican parents who sought opportunity in New York City. I also lived in a housing project (Brownsville section of Brooklyn}. I also grew up poor but graduated from college (UCLA). Yet inspired by Ronald Reagan, I am a conservative Republican and remain a practicing Catholic.

The only thing Catholics seem to be in agreement on is the Gospel. Beyond that opinios can vary profusely (of course within limits of the law of God).

No if she is pro-choice she cant even call hersefl a Christian.

We need an agnostic/atheist Justice, one who understands that morality is derived from a combination of instinct and reason, and who is concerned only with justice in this life, not getting to the next one.

People with a law degree is not a role model so stop judgeing.

I am just surprised that with all of the intrepid "investigative reporters" in this country, that we cannot at this date know more facts about this woman other than what was released from the White House. This blog indicates she is nominally Catholic, that she is divorced and without kids. Where are the freakin' reporters who could tell us the Who What When Where and Why? Who was she married to? When was she married? What has she said, done, written? Where might she go to church...anyone see her there? For all we know she is vegan Buddhist who likes to drink Sam Adams beer.

Kai,

Ok, I will try not to call liberals 'lefties;' how about leftists? ;)

You wrote:." As a US Supreme Court Judge, as US President, etc, the job is to lead the country based on what is best for the country and reflects the needs of the country, NOT to govern/rule/judge based on the dictates of Rome."

Of course, no one should govern based on the "dictates" of anyone else, Rome, Mecca, the dictates of the aclu or planned parenthood etc.

But there does not necessarily have to be a disjunction between what one perceived as the common good of our secular government and the vast majority of our country who are religious. Thankfully, I think the 2 coincide 96% of the time. Both think murder is bad, both think there should be a driving speeding limit, both agree that we should take care of our elderly, to some extent and in some form.
Most agree that the nation has a right to defend itself from foreign aggression, except the few pacifists, but arguments would come up on the specifics of when our nation's vital interests are at stake (I myself am close to being an isolationist, and think we have to0 many wannabe empire-builders.

It is really only on a few issues, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, where there is a 180 degree opposition between Catholic teaching, which we Catholics believe to be Jesus' teaching, and our government's thinking, and according to ##1902-3, for Catholics, those unjust 'laws' are not laws, they are pseudo-laws, and therefore not binding in conscience on Catholics.

BTW, sorry that you found my words about 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic unless publicly repudiated' offensive. not meant to be. I think a good analogy would be the case of married folks, who the state considers married, no matter how much the spouses cheated on each other, no matter how long they lived separately, until they went through with that official public act called divorce.
To try to look on the bright side of the 'one is still a Catholic' understanding, i think its mostly for people who one day might have a heretical thought, or commit a sin, and then wonder, am I still a Catholic? This way, they don't have to wonder. I think its Jesus and the Church's way of saying "you're always welcome back, unless you don't want to be welcomed back.'

Kevishere,

We probably already have had agnostic/atheist Justices. From what i know of Oliver Wendell Holmes, i don't think he had a religious bone in his body. Much of that can be derived from the horrors that he witnessed and participated in during the Civil War, how could there be a God who would allow this, etc.

Liberals consider Holmes the best judge of all time, which is why we conservatives consider him the worst. He was the founder of the so-called 'realist' school of law, which i would call the 'cynical, materialist' school. The worst thing about him is that he lived incredibly long, and thus was able to force his imprint into much supreme court doctrine.

But on the other hand, i would prefer an atheist judge who honestly judged according to strict interpretation, original meaning of the law style than the most pious believer who decided cases on the basis of Revelation or what the Holy Spirit had revealed to her/him over oatmeal.

Kai,

The Constitution provides freedom "of" religion and not necessarily freedom "from"
religion. Because someone believes abortion is murder and happens to be Catholic does not mean, however much it pains you, that the person has no right to excercise their citizenship.

I can think of a whole host of reasons why abortion is harmful to society. Just as I can think of a whole host of reasons why a father and a mother are critical to a child's future and therefore to a society's well being without orders from Rome.

The liberals who proclaimed the virtues of Rev. Martin Luther King (a christian)
in the 60's have become what they hate.

Kai,

Who are you to call human life, "potential life?"

Shecky and On the Left

...she can call herself Catholic or whatever she wants; but, that doesn't mean she is truly Catholic. I can call myself a penguin but that doesn't mean I am one!! Does she hold to, and put into practice, what the Catholic Church believes and teaches? That is the crux of the question.

People call themselves Catholic and that's OK with me. I can tell the difference between a practicing Catholic and a cafeteria Catholic and a nominal Catholic. If you call yourself a Catholic, even in name only, there is a grace there that speaks to a greater desire to be a true Catholic, otherwise you would never claim it. The Holy Spirit, whose coming at Pentecost we celebrate this coming Sunday, is at work in these Catholics. Let us be glad and rejoice. Amen. Alleluia!

ontheleft -

To say someone who is pro-choice, particularly these phonies who flaunt the Church in public office like Kennedy, Kerry, and the endless list in Massachusetts, is Catholic, would be as phony as you saying you are conservative. It is not what we say, it is what THEY say vs. what they do.

1) OnTheLeft #26: hear, hear.

2) Gaudette: Once again, I can't tell if you're just missing or deliberately misconstruing my point. I'll try again.

I think it's inappropriate, to say the least, for Catholics to equate membership in the Communion with a particular position on a political matter, such as the criminalization of abortion, legality of same-sex marriage, or confirmation of a particular justice.

The Church — to say nothing of the Gospel — is simply much, much bigger than that. I also feel those who make such equations, clergy no less than laity, are doing the Church a profound disservice, politically as well as spiritually.

The anti-Catholic and anti-religious sentiment on this page serves as one illustration why. When you equate (a) religious faith with a political position, any criticism of that position becomes, de facto, criticism of (the) religion.

So my advice to my more devout brothers and sisters is this: if you detest anti-Catholic and/or anti-religious bigotry as much as I, don’t use (your) religion as something to hide behind in an argument, as in “I vote this way because I’m Catholic, and you can't criticize my faith!”

When you do that, you put Catholicism itself right between the crosshairs of political debate, and you cheapen what it means to be Catholic.

There are any number of logically and morally defensible reasons available to you when you engage in political debate. Use them. And if you would honor your faith, let it inform your position rather than dictate it.

Kai,

Peace my friend. I belong to one of the most 100% Catholic Doctrine parish's in the State. We would love to see abortion become illegal but we also understand the abortion issue is about changing hearts not laws. The ministry I'm involved in is all sorts of pro life but it's not an agenda item for us. We feel the ACT of abortion is equal to killing a child out of the womb. I'm sure you can understand how some people feel this way. Although we do not believe God is a fan of birth control and maybe once a year from the pulpit the Church's stand on birth control is taught I have never heard of any movement to outlaw it. Same goes with homosexuality. We believe marriage should be between one man and one woman only but I've never heard of anything about outlawing homosexuality or leading a homosexual lifestyle. We find certain acts against God's will but we are also genuinely clear on free will. Why are we judged for our beliefs? People can spin it however they want but my community and the authentic teachings of the Church are to never judge an individual. Of course we truly believe certain choices can threaten someone's eternal soul and feel out of love when the opportunity presents itself we need to speak what we believe to be the truth. Of course Bible bashing is not effective and the most important and best we can do for our fellow man and woman is pray and be an example. We also feel strongly anyone associated with the Church who have done wrong should be accountable for their actions including full extent of the law and we know they weill be accountable to God. I personally will not let the actions of people determine how I feel about the Truth if the Church. My beliefs and behavior are influenced by my relationship with Jesus which comes from daily prayer including the Bible, regular Mass attendance and reception of the Sacraments and serving Jesus and His Church through my volunteer work.

Peace and Blessings

I find Veriseeker's comments about gays to be disgusting and reprehensible. YOU, not gays, are an abomination to our great country.

In my experience with Latino families, many latinos practice Catholicism in a more relaxed way than many here might be used to. Church attendance is more of the "family celebration" event than the weekly event in traditional New England Irish, Polish and Italian Catholic families, and Masses are much less formal.

I hate to hear people put a litmus test to what it means to be Catholic. The Church is going to go the way of the GOP (a small group of hard-core zealots) if they keep it up. I wonder if that is what Jesus would have really wanted? (And I'm not inferring that I know the answer, I'm just curious.

Observer:

Do you think it "inappropriate" when the Framer's used the words that we are endowed by our "CREATOR certain unalienable rights" in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence?

Certainly these brilliant men in the miraculous document penned in Philly, are referring to God and a "communion."

Did the framers "cheapen" their own belief system by mentioning God?

Or is it only "cheap" when Catholics do it?

Wow! I never realized how much Catholics were hated ! I think it is a blessing really. It means we must be stirring the pot so to speak. Jesus was persecuted for even less so we, Catholics are in good company. As for the appointment of
Sotomayor, she will do like all politicians; she will do some good and maybe some harm. She is human.
. That is the only truth right now.

We have to worry about her religion but it's not catholicism. She's a Democrat. That's her faith. And judging by all the other catholics invited into this administration, Sotomayor is no problemo. When our grinning pagan President hands her over to a smiling, slobbering Chuck Schumer, a career activist against Catholic judicial nominees, we know the problems with her will not be because she went to a catholic high school. How do you say acorn in spanish?

Holly,

Litmus test? Which test are you referring to when it comes to being a Catholic as defined by "the small group of hard-core zealots" you see closing its grip?

As I have said before if you want to go to a church that makes no demands on its
flock, there are plenty around here- though they are constantly changing names, and ministers and moving...try the ones with the rainbow flags and feel good about yourself.

Tumble:

Mentioning isn't cheapening. Equating is cheapening.

That's why the framers separated church and state by, among other things, prohibiting the establishment of an official religion.

Read my post again, friend.

Historic FACT, The Catholic church intimidated ,tortured and murdered people who dared not agree with their religious dogma.The church enriched its coffers with the blood soaked wealth from slavery. Great scientific knowledge was surpressed
Galilao, Bruno, Darwin, They stood against womens rights, their fear mongering dogma enabled the persicusion of Jews, and 300 years of slavery. Their on going
persecution and damnation of Gays one of Gods greatest creations is becoming ever more intolerable Gay men and women are giving there lives so this perisitic tax perivilged forign power can usurp the constitution of the united states.

Gaudete:

Sorry for misspelling your name above. I should know better; one of the first songs I learned to sing as a child had a chorus you might be familiar with: gaudeamus igitur dum iuvenes sumus.

Observer,

You seem to be saying that Catholics can not defend their faith. That's how I read it. But rather, those here who are posting are mouthing platitudes from Rome?
Who on this blog is doing this? Seems like you are making your own assumptions to re-enforce your own stereotype.

And sorry, the Framers were "equating" directly a believe in God (a system, call it what you like) with rights. Not rights from a king or a liberal dictator.

You can not have one without the other.

And they were not "hiding" behind this. And it does not "cheapen" the document.
This equating has everything to do with it, without which it is a man-made instrument subject to man and we have seen what mankind can do.

Posted by KJR May 27, 09 10:41 AM

And that's where you err, KJR. If one is going to claim that Catholicism is based in some manner on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the church's long-held hierarchical structure must be brought into question, along with its historic lust for power and riches. Its institutional attitude toward women (and children) is quite at odds with that of the scriptural Jesus, as is its support of those who wage war, commit torture and work to redistribute wealth upward, from those with very little to those with much. So this begs the question - who are the real "cafeteria Catholics"? I would submit that it is Catholics who support those who wage war, commit torture and oppress the poor, women, and minorities (including members of the gay community). The true followers of Jesus of Nazareth would provide no such support. Now if you want to argue that Catholicism has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth but everything to do with a hierarchy, no matter how corrupt its members...

White House says she attends Catholic Church for "important events including family celebrations," - ok - but so do the Mafia. Attending weekly Mass - observing Holy Days of obligation and trying to follow the teachings and precepts of the ROMAN Catholic Church - that's what makes you ROMAN CATHOLIC.

Here's what I think. With this obvious agenda of hiring Catholics-by-name-only it's not hard to see what he's trying to do. He himself may be shocked at the level of twistedness he is engaged in. These Catholics-by-name-only are the variety of Catholic who discounts the Church as being a Kingdom and instead sees it as being - or wants it to be a democracy. They are nothing more than worldly folk that places political gains above the acquisition of virtues - and the ways of the world higher than the teachings of the Church.

She was raised Catholic but because of a solid education, intense study and the ability to observe the real world with her eyes open was able to overcome that and join the 21st century. Hallajula.

Just a note for the uninformed. The whole range of progress of the western world is based upon those times when the Roman Catholic Church was the preeminent power; in the later middle ages. Our current university system, as it still is, was founded and protected by the Church in the 12th and 13th centuries. Slavery was virtually non-exixtent in the west then. Architecture reached its highest form in the great Cathedrals. The scientific method was formed and put in place almost exclusively by faithful Catholics, starting with, among others Thomas Aquinas. Dante wrote the Divine Comedy, and with the late comer, Shakespeare, also from a Catholic family, became one of the greatest writers of all time. Pespective in art returned and all art from that time is dependent upon it, not to mention the following Renaissance, which continued the greatest flow of artistic expression any place, any time, in all we know of the world. All these things and many more, come from the greatest inspiration the world has known as expressed in the Catholic Church. Was it perfect, by no means. But one cannot find a greater inspiration in all known history. Read it for yourself, it is all there. And who were the other other main participants? Those are the great Jewish thinkers, and the profound Muslim scholars of the same time periods. The Greeks and the Jews started it, the Muslims and Indians helped a long the way, but the Catholics were the greatest inspiration the world has ever known. So the fact that Catholics make up the vast majority of the Supreme Court is fitting, and in keeping with the great literary, reasoning, and deep thinking tradition the Catholic Curch started 1000 years ago.

Simple answer to a simple question. HOW Catholic is she? She's IS Catholic. She was baptized into the Catholic Church and as far as we know, hasn't been excommunicated for any reason. How Catholic is she? Not practicing the Faith by not attending mass except for "special family events", (the Eucharist is available daily) and taking moral positions (eg. abortion) counter to the churches teachings, renders her "not a strong one". All who don't like Catholics and/or what we stand for, relax. I don't see you as heavily "threatened" here.

N.Observer, thank you for correcting your spelling of my name. You are the first to do so [why don't folks just copy it, no matter what it says?] rather than 'correcting' it to Gaudette, a rather common Franco-American name.

"2) Gaudette: Once again, I can't tell if you're just missing or deliberately misconstruing my point. I'll try again." Between those 2 choices, i know i am not deliberately misconstruing, so i will choose behind curtain B, 'missing'

:"I think it's inappropriate, to say the least, for Catholics to equate membership in the Communion with a particular position on a political matter, such as the criminalization of abortion, legality of same-sex marriage, or confirmation of a particular justice."

N.Observer, i will completely agree with you on your 3rd point, that there is no equation between one's Catholicism and the confirmation of a particular justice.
On such non-doctrinal, prudential matters, reasonable Catholic minds might differ, although it's more than coincidence that you would find most of the pious, orthodox Catholics against Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, and for Scalia, etc.

Some interesting phrases you have chosen: "criminalization of abortion." I, for one, am more for the return to the status quo ante 1972, Roe v. Wade, when abortion was legal in some states, illegal in others. I am a big proponent of federalism, which granted doesn't make something illegal in every state (abortion) which is evil, but at least reduces the fedgov to its more natural, organic role in a country where subsidiarity, local rule, should be the rule in general. So i am not so much for the "criminalization of abortion," as i am for the 'criminalization of the decriminalization of abortion,' the rejection of the illegitimate usurpation of the powers reserved to the States and the People by the 10th amendment. And besides, i am for no criminal penalties for abortion. What i want is 1) the removal of the pro-abortion plank from the dem party, and 2) the removal of government sanction/ addition of government disapproval of the evil of abortion, so that it is made clear to all that the government, representing us, think it is a 'bad thing,' but no one need go to jail over it. Law has an educational effect, one way or the other.

"legality of same sex marriage" This too, like abortion, goes against not just 'the Church's position, but against God's revelation. God said that all creation, especially human, [implicitly including pre-born humans] was good, so we should not kill God's good creation. Jesus reaffirmed this many times, by being in Mary's womb for nine months, 'let the children, of all ages, including minus 9 months,
come to me, and do not harm them.' Again, it is Revelation, God said let the man leave his family and cleave to his [female] wife....' and this was completely seconded by Jesus in the Gospels. So, at a certain point, one who would still like to be known as a Catholic has to ask him/herself, why do i think i know more than the constant teaching of billions of Catholics, saints, geniuses, who are unanimous that abortion is evil, and that marriage was intended by God for one man and one woman? After a while, its just a matter of adolescent impudence, 'i know more than you Dad, Mom. All the Church's 'political positions' on these 2 matters are the reduction of infallibly revealed truths into natural law, understandable (even if not agreed to) by even those who have not received the Revelation.

The important test of Judge Sotomayor's judicial temperament and leanings is not whether she is or is not a practicing Catholic, rather it is whether or not she is a strict constitution constructionist; for the reality is that it is the sworn duty of all justices of the supreme court to interpret the law and uphold the Constitution of the United States as written, and not to "read between the lines" and make law where none is found. The sole purpose of our supreme court is not to right real or perceived civil or criminal acts, but to act as the arbitrator of what is written in the law of the land.

I think it is irrelevant to empahsize her being a Catholic, on the fact that her appointment increased the percentage of Catholic judges in the Supreme Court. She may have been a baptized one but does she practice? Does she have a clear idea on the Church's social teachings? If she is a real Catholic she would know where to stand on issues that affects morals (eg. abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc), in the same way as the Catholic Church has always been firm on those issues, irrespective of whether it will get popular support or not.

gaudete:

While I don't share your views on federalism or Revelation (or, I suspect, natural law), I thank God for the fact that you are thinking, reasoning, and coming to a conclusion about these matters informed (and perhaps guided) by your faith but by no means dictated by it.

For example, I (and you, I'm sure) know deeply devout Catholics who are opposed to abortion being legal anywhere, anytime, under any circumstance. Fine. I couldn't disagree more, but that alone doesn't make them, you, or me any better or worse Catholics.

Statements like these, on the other hand, just infuriate me (please know, Nonie, that just because I'm using "you" in what I am about to say, none of this is directed at you as a person; I'm sure you're thoughtful and wonderful. My anger is directed at the things you were very likely taught by people you rightly love and respect.):

"If she is a real Catholic she would know where to stand on issues that affects morals (eg. abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc)..."

My dear, if Judge Sotomayor were your definition of a "real Catholic" she would be immediately disqualified from serving on the bench, and for good reason. It would mean that on matters of consequence, her years of jurisprudential training and experience go out the window and she simply does what others tell her to do.

And why should she? Well, because if she doesn't, then she's a very, very bad girl indeed, and no longer a member of a very exclusive club (that, of course, everyone is just dying to join). What makes this club so attractive, of course, is its military structure, and the way it prizes loyalty and obedience over thought and reason.

In effect, you're gambling that she can be scared into voting Republican on social issues by threatening to suspend or remove her Catholic status.

You, like countless others, seem perfectly comfortable playing authenticity games with what some of us regard as the Bride of Christ. I am not.

In case you're wondering, here's what I would say instead:

"I hope her Catholicism is a source of comfort and joy to her, and that it helps guide her effectively to writing fair, honest, and just opinions on issues that affects morals (eg. abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc) as well as any other."

Posted by Robert Whitaker May 27, 09 07:27 PM

But strict constructionism must take the 9th Amendment into consideration - rights not enumerated are not necessarily non-existent. And all Supreme Court justices are, in reality, going to make law by passing on the constitutionality of established law, especially when the law in question fails the test of constitutionality. As a non-strict constructionist, I am seriously curious as to how you see Marbury v. Madison. Do you think that Chief Justice Marshall seriously overstepped when he used that case as a basis for the judicial review portions of the decision? This is not a flip, snarky question. I'm seriously curious, as you seem to be more of a strict constructionist, how you see that decision.

It is dangerous for us to leave religion out of the question. I am all for separation of church and state but by their name alone, the Roman Catholic Church is not. Their followers blindly worship the pope, who is the LEADER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY - Vatican. And they are not a live-and-let-live religion. Take a look at the Jesuit oath. Anyone who is not catholic is considered a heretic and worthy of torture and death. The office of inquisition has just changed its name is all. The jesuits have infiltrated our education system and altered our history books. And we must not forget all the children who were subject to the organized pedophilia of the Roman catholic church. JFK refused to put his faith above his duty to this country and look what happened to him. The Roman catholic church is powerful and old and set on world domination at any cost. Also Reagan established diplomatic ties with Vatican, which was given its power by Mussolini. Why do we have an embassy to Vatican: 100 +/- acres and a pope? I have a problem with our taxpayer money paying for this embassy. And the pope has a seat at the United Nations, but that's another story.

Live and let live religion? What does that mean? That sounds like the majority of people's religion in America. God is who I say he is not who He says He is.

Vicket - your post is outrageous even by standards set by others on this Board.

"JFK refused to put his faith above his duty to this country and look what happened to him."

So the Church killed JFK? That is a conspiracy I have yet to hear.

"Their followers blindly worship the pope, "

Your ignorance is astonishing.

"The jesuits have infiltrated our education system and altered our history books. "

MOST Jesuit institutions would make ontheleft proud. Gonzaga is an exception which has held the line.

"And we must not forget all the children who were subject to the organized pedophilia of the Roman catholic church."

You are utterly irresponsible.

"'And we must not forget all the children who were subject to the organized pedophilia of the Roman catholic church.'
You are utterly irresponsible."
Posted by KJR May 29, 09 09:12 PM

KJR, thousands of kids are victims of precisely that which Vicket referenced in that comment, and the rape and coverup which produced more rape constitute organized pedophilia. Where is Vicket irresponsible here?

All eyes should focus on Christ and there's no salvation in any place or person under the sun.In any position God assigns us to ,we ought to seek for wisdom from Him as did Solomon .No matter whom you are, you still need to know whom you are serving.ovious it is God and man.Your relationship with God always makes the difference

It's called "freedom of worship". 6 of our 9 justices have every right to be catholic, as do I and 70 million or so of my fellow Americans, white, black, brown, and yellow.

We don't "worship" the pope. I listen to him. He's a pretty intelligent dude.

Stay tuned.

Six catholics in the Supreme Court is something to REALLY be worried about.

I live in South America, my whole family is catholic, and i know well what i`m talking about. Catholics have a big difficulty to differentiate between the public and private spheres, always trying to impose private opinions on public affairs. Just check Judge Scalia opinions.

The worst of all is their thomist natural law theories. They apply XIII century theories these days and think that it is something "ok"!