Anti-Catholicism: Experts continue to question Catholics on the Supreme Court

A sad reminder of what Catholics in public office still face:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced frustration Tuesday over what he called persistent questions about the court's Roman Catholic majority.

Alito aired the topic in a speech to an Italian-American law group in Philadelphia.

"There has been so much talk lately about the number of Catholics serving on the Supreme Court," Alito said in a speech to the Justinian Society. "This is one of those questions that does not die."

Alito complained about "respectable people who have seriously raised the questions in serious publications about whether these individuals could be trusted to do their jobs."

He said he thought the Constitution settled the question long ago with its guarantee of religious freedom.

Alito, 59, the son of an Italian immigrant, is one of six justices on the nine-member court who were raised Catholic, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

... The Roman Catholic Church endorses positions on several high-profile legal issues, including abortion, the death penalty and gay marriage. Some commentators have argued that Catholics in the court's conservative voting bloc — Chief John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Alito — are likely to oppose abortion or otherwise apply Catholic teachings to their rulings. (AP)

Three quick thoughts:

• The elephant in the room here is social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. No one would complain about Catholics stacking the supreme court bench if they all were liberal on their views about these issues. No one complains about how many Catholics Obama has appointed to his administration, because all of his appointments agree with his liberal views on these issues. As I've said before, the kind of Catholic the President likes, is a bad Catholic (a "bad Catholic" is someone who actively dissents from the Church's teaching).
• Catholics on the supreme court who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage do not do so because they are Catholic, they do this because they can think. Catholic opposition to practices which harm human life and society are enlightened by faith through reason, not dictated by faith in opposition to reason. The bottom line here is that you don't have to be Catholic to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. But it can help your conviction.
• The recent case of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is a perfect illustration of the ulterior purpose behind this stupid claim that there are "too many Catholics on the supreme court." The fact that Sotomayor promised to uphold the unjust precedent established by Roe v. Wade - and was never fundamentally challenged to express her opinion about homosexual marriage - guaranteed that pundits would not go after her too much for her religion. If she promised to uphold the natural law conclusions about the dignity of human life and the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, things would have been very different.

Bottom line: there is no reason to accuse Catholics of being bad for America. Such a charge is always a cheap-shot which ignores the substantive arguments that Catholics bring into the debate, and the long tradition of public service that today's Catholics are proud to continue.

It's time to face our arguments, not accuse our religion.

Picture: Red Mass in DC attended by six Catholic SCOTUS members

Local DC blog Snark Infested provides photos from this years Red Mass (Mass for lawyers), where all six of the Catholic Supreme Court Justices of the United States were in attendance I believe:

Reports from the ground indicate that yes (as picture above) - the most recent Supreme Court confirmation, Sonia Sotomayor, was in attendance (even though I hear she has not attended Mass in years), as was Catholic Vice-President Joe Biden. The homily was preached by Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (update - here is the full text of Cardinal DiNardo's homily).

Notably, no mention of the duty of judges to uphold the natural law teaching on Traditional (i.e., heterosexual) marriage was mentioned, which I think is dissapointing considering our political climate.

Cardinal Rigali, meanwhile, issued a "powerful statement" on Respect Life Sunday.

Did your priest preach on life issues this previous Sunday?

More CT drama: legislators try to stifle Catholic free speech

From the Diocese of Bridgeport website:

In United States District Court today, attorneys representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport filed a lawsuit against officials of the State of Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE), seeking a court order to stop them from an unconstitutional application of state lobbying laws.

These officials are requiring the Diocese – and presumably all other organizations – to register as a lobbyist in order to engage in activities such as a rally at the State Capitol or using its website to encourage its members to contact their elected representatives. Application of the law in this manner would subject the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly to government oversight and penalties.

In laymen's terms, the Connecticut legislators are trying to create bureaucracy in order to thwart future grassroots efforts by Catholics to speak out when the rights of the Church are being threatened by ... the Connecticut legislators.

I did a huge amount of coverage on the Connecticut backstory which is gathered under this tag.

The diocese of Bridgeport has video, background and contact information. (Good use of technology!)

Sotomayor, sixth Catholic justice, nominated by Obama to Supreme Court

Consider this an open thread.

There are many, many links to follow on the Sotomayer announcement, but what is most interesting to me (and fellow papists), is her religious affiliation:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. (Michael Paulson at the Boston Globe)

I'll refrain from further comment at this point, but it would be unfair to deny the opportunity for AmP readers to weigh-in. So have at it.

As an important note, pro-life organizations are quickly responding to the nomination. Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, says:

“A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice is a vote to strip Americans of the ability to choose for themselves how to regulate abortion. Our recent polling data speaks to this point of judicial activism and as a woman, I don't believe she 'represents' American women.”

Related: Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, has a compelling op-ed today; "Golden Opportunity to Move Beyond the Legacy of Roe v. Wade" over at their news blog Headline Bistro.

American United for Life to Leahy: No Radical Justice Appointments

Today, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, delivered this letter (PDF) to the Senate Judiciary Committee Members. Money quote:

"... elevating abortion to a fundamental right on the same plane as the freedom of speech would void common-sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support, like the prohibition on partial-birth abortion. Such a move would also require taxpayer funding of abortion, eliminate informed consent and parental notice and consent laws, state requirements that abortions be done only by physicians, and more. A judicial nominee who intends to pursue such a radical agenda should be summarily rejected by the Senate."

Hot Air has more.

Anti-Catholic CT legislators still at it

They should stop while they're behind:

During a meeting to officially kill legislation, including the bill that brought thousands of Catholics to protest last week, the chairmen -- Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven -- warned that the General Assembly is in danger of stifling research and debate.

"We hear all sorts of issues that are sometimes great but just too controversial to vote on, some aren't ready for prime time, some that don't have money for them," McDonald said. "I suspect that people on this committee would be very angry if the co-chairs only allowed issues that we support or in our opinion have no constitutional concerns." (Connecticut Post)

Oh sure, let's debate issues that are clearly anti-constitutional....

Wait - WHAT?! Are they on crazy pills?!

Judge compels homeschoolers into public school, cites religion

Just your friendly neighborhood anti-religious-education representative reporting for duty:

A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need to switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children's parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.

Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.
"We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,” Venessa Mills said.
Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.

Of the problems (unfortunately) to be found in this situation, I don't think "religious slant" is one of them.

And while we're on the topic of homeschooling, do check out Homeschool Connections which offers free online seminars for Catholic Homeschool Families.

Underage Abortion? Sure! Underage Tattoo? Parental Consent!

AmP reader Don writes:

The [Maryland] House of Delegates approved a measure to require consent for minors who want a tatoo.

And yet our legislators continue to support a state law that does NOT require consent for an abortion!

I dunno, it makes sense to me: I mean, a tatoo can be dangerous....

/sarcasm.

Video: The outrageous case of Pastor Hoye

This is getting me really worked up.

From LifeNews:

A pro-life African-American pastor has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for sharing a pr-life message outside local abortion centers. Walter Hoye was previously found guilty of violating what pro-life attorneys call an unconstitutional city law designed specifically to target him.

From AmP reader Bryan:

Walter Hoye, a Baptist minister in Berkeley, was sentenced to 30 days in jail today and received an $1130 fine for the following harassing behavior:



If you read a bit on the testimony presented at trial, you'll find the clinic escorts and director fabricated much of the testimony regarding Pastor Hoye's behavior. Apparently, the Oakland DA's office even collaborated with the abortion clinic on how best to entrap Pastor Hoye.

Related links:

• Issues4Life Foundation - The Legal "No Christ Zone" in Oakland, California (contains video)
• California Catholic Daily - “We ought to stand with him”
• Catholics for the Common Good - Walter Hoye and His Wife Lori Need Your Support

Dealing with FOCA-supporters in Canon Law

Canonist Ed Peters lays out the legal tools that Bishops may put into use against FOCA-supporters:

The final wording of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has yet to be set, but there is every indication that it will be the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed at the federal level. The near certainty that FOCA will be re-introduced (compounded by the increased likelihood that it will pass and be signed into law) means that, ready or not, Catholic bishops will have to face squarely the problem of well-known Catholic legislators supporting a specifically and gravely evil bill. As I see it, bishops have four options for dealing with Catholic legislators who support FOCA:

[Read them here.]

Cardinal Egan asks readers to "just look" at picture of unborn child

In his column yesterday for the New York Catholic, Cardinal Egan tried something different:

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

Farther in:

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

... but, did he mention any of this to Obama last weekend?

I mean, I agree with everything Cardinal Egan says, I'd just like to know what we're to make of the above.

American Bishops' VP discusses the status of pro-abort politicians

Expert canonical commentary over at CanonLawBlog.com:

Bp. Kicanas on Catholic pro-abortion politicians Bp. Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, now vice-president of the USCCB, gave an interview to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen on, among other things, the situation of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. While I hesitate to read too much into Kicanas' answers (they seemed off-the-cuff, understandably so), and while I recognize that some of Allen's questions were oddly phrased, what the future USCCB president says about this issue is important, and I think a few remarks are in order. {Read about it here.}

Bonus topic: "American Sign Language as a Catholic pastoral language"

Picture: Pro-Life demonstrators in front of Supreme Court today

The Supreme Court goes back into session today.....

Caption: "A pregnant pro-life demonstrator and her daughter kneel before the Supreme Court in Washington October 6."

Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES)

Noted: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage'

Things aren't looking good for the upcoming November referendum:

A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

... A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it. (AP)

It's hard to give people reasons to vote for something they don't think directly effects their lives.

"New rules proposed to protect anti-abortion doctors"

And let me just say to begin with - this Associated Press news story title is very unsettling. Let me get this straight: abortion doctors need protection ... in order to not practice abortions. What a world.

Anyway, I early reported on this story here, and now it's made the mainstream:

The Bush administration proposed stronger job protections Thursday for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," Leavitt said. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

Leavitt, as I said before, seems very capable of handling himself, which is relief because it's rare to find someone in a position of authority who's on the right side of this type of issue.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about protecting doctors - how about not protecting doctors who remove organs from infants before they've met the criteria for brain death.

And let's focus on protecting the vulnerable party.

update: whoo-boy, are the "feministas" angry or what?

CA court ruling: Doctors must inseminate lesbian couples

The doctors were even willing to instruct the couple how to "self-inseminate" after fertility drug treatment, but that was not enough:

California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the unanimous ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain anti-discrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew the attention of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors. (AP)

It saddens me to see that these Christian doctors did not receive at least equal support from the Christian community, although obviously I am not trying to assign blame in this matter because I only heard of it myself after the decision was handed down, and this apparently has been in litigation for some time. It's hard to be an ethical doctor these days.

And I wonder how homosexual men could be discriminated against in this instance ...? Do I want to?

update: CNA picks up on the story here.

Ph/t: AmP reader "J."

Pro-Gay persecution continues in Canada

Quoted in full as a warning to the rest of us, so that we realize what is already happening:

Canada's human rights industry has resumed its investigation of Catholic Insight magazine, published by Father Alphonse de Valk. The Canadian Human Rights Commission had announced on July 4 that it was dropping its 16-month investigation against the publication for alleged 'hate'. However, homosexual activist Rob Wells, the complainant in the case, was given 30 days to request a judicial review of the case.

According to a federal court docket, Wells requested the judicial review on July 31. Canadian blogger 'Blazing Cat Fur' broke the story Thursday evening ... The docket lists the complainant as "Robert Dale Wells" and mentions that he is suing from Edmonton Alberta.

Fr. de Valk was informed of the application for judicial review Friday morning by reporter Pete Vere, author of an upcoming book on the Human Rights Commission and its attack on freedoms of religion and speech. "I'm very disappointed if I have to go through this again," he told Vere.

Fr. de Valk further told LifeSiteNews.com that he sees the move as "another attempt to drain us of funds" noting "he's already cost us over $20,000." (LifeSiteNews)

The so-called "hate speech" published by the magazine was actually only orthodox Catholic teacing on the subject. The person suing excerpted sentences and fragments from out of their proper context in his case.

"Mt. Soledad cross allowed to remain at war veteran memorial"

I have memories of playing around this cross on Mt. Soledad when I lived in California. Even back then some were demanding it be removed. At the time, I couldn't figure out why anyone would want that:

Tuesday the Federal District Court of Southern California ruled that the 29-foot cross overlooking San Diego County will not be removed from its position on Mount Soledad. The cross, originally dedicated in 1954 to honor Korean War veterans is the center of a national veteran’s memorial.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, Federal District Court Judge Larry Alan Burns ruled: “The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice.”

... This isn’t the first time that the Law Center has defended the cross. In a recent release, the Law Center noted that they defended the cross in 2006 after an agreement was made between the City of San Diego and an atheist who wanted the cross to be removed.

The main lobbying organization behind wanting it down? The ACLU, which said they may appeal.

CUA Law hosts "Common Morality for the Global Age" event this weekend

I might be attending some of these conference events this weekend (Mar 27-30):

The Catholic University of America’s Center for Law, Philosophy and Culture presents a symposium, “A Common Morality for the Global Age: In Gratitude for What We Are Given.”

In response to the personal appeal of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, this symposium seeks to elicit ideas and concepts for the renewal of a global culture that can sustain the moral insight necessary for addressing our world’s pressing problems. Can we reclaim an original attitude of acknowledgement of, and respect for, the gift of existence that arguably has historically informed the world’s great moral and cultural traditions? Leading thinkers from philosophy, theology, ethics and politics will gather for several days of papers, discussion and common reflection centered on this question.

Links:

• Schedule
• Speakers
• Panelists & Respondents
• Symposium Question

The events are free and open to the public, but registration reserves you a seat.

Any suggestions as to what events I should prioritize? There's plenty of good options it seems.

"Catholic hospital to allow transgender surgery after being sued"

CNA:

A Catholic hospital that refused to allow its facilities to be used for breast implant surgery on a man that had undergone a sex-change operation will now allow the procedure, the California Catholic Daily reports.

... On February 27 the San Francisco television station CBS 5 News reported that the hospital had issued a written statement to CBS 5 that said, “We regret any confusion that may have come from this situation. We want this patient and her physician to know that they are welcome at Seton Medical Center.”

... The CBS 5 News station characterized the statement as a “veiled apology.” It said, “transgender Charlene Hastings has claimed moral victory against Catholics.”

According to the California Catholic Daily, Hasting’s attorney, Chris Dolan, said that a lawsuit seeking monetary damages would proceed.

“Like any good religious experience, first you need enlightenment and then you need atonement,” said Dolan. “And what we have here perhaps is a glimpse of enlightenment. Has it changed their heart? I don’t think so. Will it change their practice? It better.”

What jerk comments from attorney Chris Dolan.

update: since this story is getting alot of interest, it's especially important to note that if you read the entire original article, it concludes:

Hastings will not undergo surgery at Seton, saying he would not be comfortable because he would feel the hospital would be “doing it under duress.”

With that said, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters explains why the Catholic hospital has been saved having to rigorously refuse such immoral treatment here.

WI Bishops drop opposition to plan-b bill and Fr. Kubat responds

Franz Klein of The Catholic Beat has published a story he wrote for the Wisconsin Catholic Times.

He explains:

This talk is very notable here in Wisconsin, since our bishops have officially dropped opposition to a bill that will force Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception after the administration of a pregnancy test. For reasons Father Kubat lays out quite clearly, this legislation is unacceptable, as is the bishops' current position.

Notable passages:

A doctor who practiced urology in Milwaukee before he became a priest, Father Kubat is a nationally recognized bioethics expert.

“If there’s doubt of fact, you don’t act,” said Father Christopher Kubat, M.D., Oct. 17 in regard to providing the morning-after pill to victims of sexual assault.

Father Kubat said addressing the issue of providing emergency contraception to rape victims is “timely,” given that Wisconsin is currently considering legislation that would require hospitals to administer the morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, to sexual assault victims.

Although the Connecticut law took effect Oct. 1, Father Kubat said Oct. 17 that it’s not too late in Wisconsin, where the proposed law has yet to pass. To help guide bishops, he said the current USCCB statement’s ambiguity on what type of certainty is acceptable before dispensing the potentially fatal morning-after pill needs to be clarified.

But Father Kubat emphasized that “there is no appropriate testing,” and neither would there be appropriate testing until medical science comes up with a way to determine if fertilization has occurred. He said a pregnancy or urinary test won’t show up as positive until two to three weeks after fertilization, and ovulation testing isn’t completely reliable either. “So if you give Plan B,” even if these tests have come back negative, “it could cause an abortion,” he said.

According to Wadas’ testimony, the WCC’s lack of opposition to SB 129/AB 377 is conditioned upon being able to “follow testing protocols that establish with moral certitude that a pregnancy has not occurred.” The WCC argued that pregnancy and ovulation testing can and do establish the necessary certitude that a woman is not pregnant.

But Father Kubat vehemently disagreed. “If we are morally certain about anything, it is that the risk of an abortion using these drugs is significant based on the scientific data presented,” he said. “That’s what we can be morally certain of if we want to talk about moral certainty.”

“If you take an honest look at the scientific data, reliable testing” to establish absolute certitude “does not exist,” Father Kubat added. “But now, unfortunately, most hospitals regularly dispense emergency contraception, including Catholic hospitals.”

The entire article is worth a read.

It's clear that Catholic hospitals across the country are quickly introducing Plan B into their rape protocols, often through legal coercion. I think this growing movement all the more demands that an official clarification from a competent Ecclesiastical body be issued.

Catholic hospitals must be allowed in law to practice medicine according to their principles and without violating the consciences of prudent physicians and care givers. Catholic hospitals deserve the support of the Church when they attempt to challenge unjust intrusive laws. At the same time, before Catholic workers stick their necks out, they should be told if this is actually an issue that demands their heroic witness.