|
 |
 |
 Monday, October 31, 2005
The Fifth Catholic/Maggie Gallagher
David Bernstein on Volokh.com notes that Judge Sam Alito, if confirmed, will be the fifth Catholic on the Court, making it the first time a majority of Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. He offers this observation: "I'd venture that it's not simply a result of more enlightenment on the part of non-Catholic Americans, but also that Post-Vatican II, the Catholic Church is less foreign, both in prayer (in that mass is now in English), sociologically (because Catholics no longer differ that much from other Americans in where they send their kids to school and how many children they have), and in terms of ideas (e.g., the Church's renouncement of anti-Jewish theology; compare the 19th century Edgardo Mortara case). In short, as with American Jews and other groups, a story of both declining prejudice and assimilation." Hmm, tell that to Scalia and his nine kids. . . . Anti-Catholicism came in two forms: the high protestant variety, which looked down on Catholics for being obedient peasants with too many kids and the low church (evangelicals) sort, which saw the Church of Rome as their historic religious enemy. High protestants and their secular equivalents like the fact that ordinary Catholics are now virtually indistinguishable from the broader culture. Evangelicals have dropped their intense dislike of Catholics because they value the Catholic Church's fidelity to basic Christian teachings on abortion, marriage, and sexuality. The net results is a decline in anti-Catholicism, as the Catholic Church becomes both more and less "mainstream" at the same time. posted by maggie at 9:12 AM | link 
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Judge Alito is of Italian descent.
It's not that evangelicals see Rome as the enemy as much as Rome sees evangeicals as the enemy. The currnt pope and John Paul II have labeled "fundamentalism" as "dangerous" and JPII even blamed a literal interpretation of the Bible as the cause of racism and sexism. Anybody read Trent lately (fully affirmed in VatII, by the way)?
Isn't Sandra Day O'Conor Catholic? Or am I being fooled by the surname?
Maggie, did you misquote Mr. Bernstein as saying Judge Alito is Hispanic? I checked out Volokh.com and he never said that. That statement in the above post, The Fifth Catholic, that Judge Alito would be the first Hispanic on the Court has since disappeared. Explanation?
Bleechers,
Count this Catholic as someone who dissents from your lead statement. Last week I was told by one of the evangelicals who maintains JustforCatholics.org that Catholicism is a collection of "human traditions" and that the "bishop of Rome" is "counterfeit."
And yes, Alito is of (recent) Italian ancestry. I suppose Bernstein was thrown by the vowel at the end of the nominee's name.
The anti-catholic feelings of the past were the result of the more individualist, and thus rights orientated, philosophy of Protestants along with the other historical divisions. Obviously both have been opposed to eachother's philosophy and theology in some areas. And it is true that some of the theological divisions still exits but we are speaking of political philosophy. With the integration into American society Catholics and protestants have found more freedom to find common ground on the place of rights and the importance of Christian community.
Roman Catholics have assimilated into society. Thus, they are well accepted in government and on the Court. The more interesting question: "Why are they disproportionately represented on the Court?" I have no answer, although I suspect that it may have something to do with Thomism.
Terry,
Don't be fooled by the surname. Justice O'Connor is of English descent and is an Episcopalian.
Good question Daniel. I am beginning to think that Catholics have an advantage over evangelical Protestants. Dems are on their guard about being ant-Catholic and its okay to be anti-religious right, ie. anti-evangelical. Also, Thomistic natural law theory is a very good basis for a political philosophy that respects the basic principles of the constitution and the communitarian tendencies of American tradition.
The most obvious reason for the acceptance of Catholics on the bench is because so many of them have abandoned the Church's moral teaching anyway - what is there to fear from a CINO who winks at the Magisterium?
For example, I was informed by the Lt Gov of my state (a Catholic) that the Gov was "pro-choice Catholic." No such thing! But the gov is passing himself off as a Catholic for political reasons of course.
Similarly, plenty of ambitious lawyers and judges get themselves properly "churched" to keep themselves in the running for promotion and enhance their support base. That's just the way it is. You can never take their views for granted.
and this nomination on the anniversary of the Reformation. As a fundamentalist Christian, all i can do is say that the Reformation, and its teachings about what constitued the Roman church ended long ago...
The comment in regard to there being no such thing as a "pro-choice Catholic" contains it in the very reason evangelicals have rightly feared Rome.
Since Catholics are bound by their church (which teaches that it is the SOLE vehicle of salvation) to "bow will and intellect" to the Magisterium, the Pope and even to their local bishop, why should we not question their ability to rule independently?
Is a Catholic judge or politician not in danger of excommunication or incurring an anathema if he rules independently of the Magisterium?
Your comment suggests that he must choose between his "vehicle of salvation," his "means of salvation" and the constitution.
It's apparently OK if the US Bishops threaten to withhold communion for liberals in regard to abortion, but what if they do the same to conservatives on other issues?
The condescending, thinly veiled, anti-Catholic bigotry contained in some of the posts on this subject is rather disturbing, but not entirely surprising.
Just a thought (from a Catholic)...
Anti-Catholic prejudice in the U.S. had its heyday during the vast immigration from Ireland and Eastern Europe at the beginning of the last century. Now, there are over 60 million Catholics in America -- the single largest denomination!
Our schools are widely considered an affordable and excellent alternative to public education, with some ranking among the best in the country (Notre Dame, Georgetown)... Hence our surplus of intellectual talent in law and other professions.
Let us please put theological quibbling aside. American Catholics are mainstream not on account of their attitudes towards the Magisterium! Dear heavens, only a crank would tout such an absurd notion. (Though it's true that on birth control and death penalty and plenty of other issues, overwhelming numbers of sincere church-going Catholics simply ignore the Vatican.)
Nor is it because we gave up Latin Mass or now reserve fish fridays for Lent. We Catholics are 1 in 5 Americans, and (unlike virtually all the 'mainstream' protestant sects) we're growing! We've gone from being "shanty Irish" to having evenly distributed socio-economic status. Politically, we are a powerful swing vote courted by both sides of the political spectrum.
Someone just pulled a liberal trick! Congrats. Avoid the facts and accuse your detractors of being bigots. You want hatred? Try reading Trent. Have you seen the lovely statements in Vatican II in regard to indulgences and/or leaving the Catholic Church? Anathemas and damnation anyone?
If you want to charge someone with being "anti-Catholic" please back up the charge with a reference/quote.
A question for you: did you support the US Bishops' threat to withhold communion (a "means of salvation") from pro-abort politicians? What if they threatened conservative politicians with the same? Should the conservatives be obedient to their constituents or to the US Bishops?
That is a very legitimate, real-life, contemporary question.
The low-church (evangelical) Bob Jones University type of anti-catholicism (me, for example) is opposed to the religion of Catholicism, not the politics.
I daresay that Bob Jones University has no problem with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas.
The Catholics have not ever been a separate political system in America. Therefore, I have no opposition to Catholic politicians. I have at my desk a picture of me with former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating.
If I lived in Italy or Northern Ireland, I might have a different view.
This writer never mentioned another writer by name. But, by judging from the response, if the shoe fits....by the way, wasn't the anti-Catholic, "the Pope will tell him what to do," "Washington will be run from Rome," argument addressed by JFK in September of 1960 in Houston??
O'Connor is a protestant. The last name is historically protestant in Ireland.
True, the name O'Connor is historically Irish but that is not the ethnic background Justice O'Connor claims, nor does she profess to being a Protestant. According to her bio, she is an Episcopalian of English descent....
This writer never mentioned any names.
Someone has asked a question about John Kennedy. Yes, Kennedy made a very SPECIFIC speech addressing the issue, as all who adhere to any religious system which boasts an infallible class (read the catechism) of men who require adherents to "bow will and intellect" should.
This writer didn't write the Council of Trent or Vatican II or the Syllabus of Errors or the post-conciliar documents of Vatican II.
If others identify themselves with those documents as being their "rule of faith" then I suggest that others have a Constitutional Crisis.
If we want to agree that all the councils and decrees mentioned above are in error, then we will find common ground. If one wants to claim the above documents are the "rule of faith" then one must decide if he will support the constitution over a threat of a denial of a "means of salvation" or in light of an infallible decree.
If one does not fear the threats of anathema from one's church, then why does one believe its promises?
Hmmm, disgruntled, guilt-ridden, ex-Catholics, anyone??
Bingo!!
You guys make good liberals. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
*Don't answer the questions
*Avoid the issue
*Attack the person not the argument
Congrats to the Dems for two more converts.
I quote the popes and councils and that makes me "disgruntled"? Leftists have the game down well!
I think Pius IX would agree with me (and he did).
JP,
I think you left out self-loathing...
If you don't care (or know) what the Catholic Church teaches, I suggest you remain silent on the topic.
Name-calling just displays your ignorance and your lack of intellect.
My intent was/is not to get personal. Just calling it like I see it. I apologize if I hurt anybody's feelings but pointing out the truth (as I saw it in this case) sometimes does. It's just that from my experience, those who are hyper-critical of the Church are former Catholics who now have a burning disdain for all things Catholic. Have a wonderful and blessed All Saints Day tomorrow!
Amen!
You used the phrase "anti-Catholic" bigotry yet you never gave an example. Nor did you ever answer any other question raised.
If you don't care what the popes and councils teach, you're not much of a Catholic.
Thank you for being so judgemental; but I expected that from someone who has turned his back on the Church and now feels guilt over that decision. If you heap enough scorn and ridicule on the Church, it somehow justifies your decision to have left it to begin with. Don't worry, I understand. We all have crises of faith. Some will embrace the Church and work through it while others will leave it and try to tear it apart on their way out because the Church reminds them of the weakness of their faith and inabiltity to follow its Magisterium. In the end, it all comes down to free will. You have been given the gift of free will by the Creator. With that gift comes the burden of choice. You've made yours, now deal with it and stop hating the Church and its faithful.
Wow, well said JP; this is getting good....
Bleechers, you are badly misinformed. First, the Catholic Church does not teach that it is the "SOLE vehicle of salvation." In fact, the "radio priest," Father Feeney in Boston, was EXCOMMUNICATED in the 1940s for so claiming. Rather, the Catholic Church teaches that it alone has the FULLNESS of Truth and therefore furnishes the BEST means of Salvation, though it allows (1) that other denominations share some, even significant amounts, of the Truth and (2) one cannot impose limits on God's grace or capabilities to save.
Second, you evidently misunderstand the nature of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. By saying, "Amen" when receiving Communion, the Catholic communicant is representing the following things: (1) that he/she believes the Eucharist he/she is about to receive IS indeed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, miraculously transformed through the action of the priest at the consecration in the Mass; (2) that he/she is NOT in a state of grave sin, meaning that he/she has been to sacramental Confession and confessed, repented, received absolution and done penance for any such sin; and (3) that he/she is truly IN COMMUNION WITH the Catholic Church and its body of belief. With respect to abortion, the Catholic Church maintains unequivocally that this is an intrinsic evil, and that aiding and abetting it is gravely sinful. It follows that the pro-"abortion rights" politician - unless he/she has repented, been to Confession, received absolution and done penance for actions in aid of "abortion rights" - is NOT in Communion with the Catholic Church and therefore LIES if he/she says, "Amen" and receives Communion in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the right -- indeed, the obligation - to define its principles, and to safeguard the faithful against being misled as to Church teaching.
Now, if a baptized Catholic insists on maintaining a pro-"abortion rights" position, and acting in furtherance of abortion, he/she certainly has the free will to do so. The Church's refusal of Communion to such a politician will make a difference to the politician's behavior only if the politician cares about continued receipt of the sacraments. Most, if not all, pro-abortion politicians don't really care about loss of the sacraments as most seldom if ever attend Mass anyway.
Your suggestion that Catholics cannot be trusted to hold judicial or other public office because their Church maintains that it has the fullness of truth is ludicrous. Every Church that I know of ALSO maintains that IT has the fullness of truth. The oath that every officeholder takes is to the Constitution of the United States. THAT DOCUMENT is the basis for any and all constitutional decisions.
Finally, I invite you to explore DEEPLY the issues and challenges you raise. If you allow yourself to be truly OPEN to the truth, and to the working of the Holy Spirit, you just may discover -- despite yourself -- that the Spirit leads you "home to Rome" as has happened, and as continues to happen, with so many! As former Anglican and renowned scholar John Henry (Cardinal) Newman wrote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." In that regard, I invite you to listen to these audiotaped episodes of "The Journey Home" program on EWTN. Each episode features the conversion story of someone whose love for Jesus Christ and search for the fullness of truth led him or her to enter the Catholic Church. Most of the conversions recounted here involve former CLERGY of various Protestant and Evangelical denominations - perhaps even including your own. I invite you to scroll down and listen. There are 13 pages worth, with about 30 episodes on each page! Here's the link:
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892289&NewList=&T1=journey
Or, more simply put, "protestants need not apply."
As a longtime "evangelical" I take exception with Maggie's use of the term "low church," ouch. I have, however, the deepest respect for her analysis of marriage and the family.
Catholics and Mormons are unapologetic about their obligation to study, learn and master what is knowable about the world. I am sorry to say that as an Evangelical, we have been late in this venture...perhaps permanently wounded by the Scopes trial and retreated to small Christian liberal arts colleges to "defend ourselves."
My Quaker mother and Episcopalian father were generations removed from "papist animus" but revered Saint Francis remotely and John Paul II recently. I am thankful for a good and great God who calls us to love him, "with all our heart, our soul and our mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves." I pray for this daily.
Blessings,
David B.
I'd like to get back to the question as to why the Supreme Court is disproportionately Catholic.
1. Catholics and Jews are overrepresented in the legal community. However, there is still a bias against Jews at the Supreme Court level. Also, there is a bias towards "balanced" candidates, that is those who are married with children (a strike against Miers). Catholics are more likely to fit the bill.
2. Someone described the Catholic Church as a "law school masquerading as a religion". The Catholic Church has had a long, long relationship with law, from Roman law, to canon law. Legal thinking is a way of life (as it is for Jews).
3. America is a religious country and there is a bias against atheists/non-religious. Even evangelicals would generally prefer a church-going Catholic nominee to an a-religious one.
In sum, Catholics are the perfect compromise candidate, combining legal/cultural/intellectual credentials but also grounded in strong moral values. Just as Catholics are split evenly among Dems and Repubs, they are acceptable to both (Jews and liberal protestants would be oppoosed by most Repubs and Evangelicals by most Dems).
Post a Comment
<< Home