I’ve said this twice, I’ll say it a third time, hopefully you will hear me this time:
Catholicism is a hierarchical religion. According to Catholic doctrine, the preists, etc. intercede between God and the individual Catholic. In other religions, there’s a direct relationship between God and the individual. So no one can be excommunicated for having political opinions that vary from the faithful’s. A rabbi’s ruling, or a Protestant minster’s judgement, are really just opinions, however respected that opinion might be. Not so Catholicism.
So a politician or a judge can say, 'I understand your concerns rabbi, but in my conversations wthh God on this issue, we see things differently. Sorry. And that’s it. But a preist says, “Your opinion may be what it is, but this opinion comes from Rome, and you can’t disagree with it and be a Catholic.”
We hear you. We simply understand, better than you, apparently, that your claim is a caricature of the actual relationship between a person and the Magisterium of the Church, particularly in the realm of making political decisions.
Row v Wade has been the law of the land for over 30 years. Numerous Catholic judges (including Brennan, who sat on the Supreme Court at that time) have performed their functions without let or hindrance from Rome. You truly do not understand the complexity of the issues you address and your claims are, in a word, wrong.
But, again, that doesn’t seem to happen. As Tom mentioned, Justice Brennan supported abortion rights, in spite of the Catholic Church’s oppostion. Justice Scalia supports capital punishment, in spite of the Catholic Church’s opposition.
Is the fact that some authorities in the Catholic Church have threatened to withhold various sacraments from Catholic politicians, who do not kowtow to current Church doctrine, something to be concerned about or not, especially concerning a devout Catholic politician for whom a lifetime appointment is at stake?
THAT is the debate, not whether Evil Captor is bigoted against Catholics, or not.
I personally find it unlikely that Judge Roberts would put current Catholic doctrine ahead of the U.S. Constitution. There’s nothing in his background that suggests he would, as far as I can tell.
Evil Captor, have you ever met an American Catholic? The idea that the American laity has any tendencies toward any kind of zombie-ism from the Vatican is to laugh! They’re the prodigal sons of Catholicism. The concept and term “cafeteria Catholic” ORIGINATED in the USA. Your posts in this thread are positing some form of hive mind that just doesn’t exist. I know a lot more Catholics who are much more likely to greet a fire-and-brimstone sermon against birth control with “That priest is nuts” than “must…burn…condoms…”
Agreed, Kennedy is not a hardcore Catholic, which is why I used the phrase in my OP. However, the two most troglodyte, neanderthal scum on the Court ARE hardcore Catholics – Thomas and Scalia. Now we propose to add another Catholic to the court, recommended by President Dubya, who is known for his hardcore, uncompromising approach to politics, and I have to think he’s more likely to be a Scalia/Thomas kinda Catholic than a Kennedy kinda Catholic (in any sense of the world “Kennedy.” Even with Kennedy not being part of a solid block there, the thought of a third Scalia-like trog on the bench is scary. Especially with Rome turning kind of troglodyte right of late.
Yes, historically white male protestants have been over-represented in American … everything. And Jews are over-represented, too. Women, seriously under-represented, and thanks to Roberts, about to be even seriouslier under-represented. But do any of them have this hierarchical approach to religion I’ve been talking about?
Something WRONG with discussing it on a message board?
Your question needs refining. People in positions of authority within the Church have threatened to withhold sacraments.
No authority of the Church has threatened to withhold sacraments.
In fact, the practice of such threats has been condemned by actual authority.
The thread is whether we need a CATHOLIC on the Supreme Court, not whether we need ROBERTS.
This thread is part of a distinguishable bias against Catholics by Evil Captor, and he is attempting to shoehorn that bias into a question on politics.
It’s not fitting, man. Let this one go. I’m sure my people will do something even more monumentally heinous as soon as we get the next directive beamed into our crucifixes by Vatican Command.
Give an example of the sort of act for which (a) Catholic canon law permits excommunication, and (b) you believe a Supreme Court Justice should be permitted to commit.
A subtle distinction. So there is an authority within the Catholic Church that is not comprised of people? So you mean God himself has not come down to threaten the withholding of sacraments? Or do you mean that some people, higher in authority within the Church than the threateners, have disagreed with the threats?
Anyway, if you want to bash Evil Captor for anti-Catholic bias, I say take it to the Pit. It is not a subject worthy for debate here.
But Thomas and Scalia are split on major issues like capital punishment. So how do you reconcile that with their religion “directing” them on such matters?
Define “Scalia/Thomas kinda Catholic.” What stance defines such a Catholic? Because, as I think it’s been pointed out many times, the two are not congruent or indistinguishable.
There’s only one Scalia-like anything on the Supreme Court: Scalia.
Ummm… what?
The main knock on Rome is that it is unchanging. Your main knock on “Rome” with regard to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is that its stance is unchanging. “Rome” hasn’t turned anything. It’s been more consistent in its politics than any entity of which I can conceive.
And, by the way, Rome is a city in Italy. The seat of Catholic power is Vatican City, which is a separate city and separate nation.
If I, while wearing my uniform that marks me as a police officer, express disapproval of the fact that you are chewing your gum with your mouth open, so be it.
But if I try to exert that authority as a police officer by arresting you, my commanding officer will laugh me right out of the precinct.
So it is with the Church and withholding of the sacraments. A priest may refuse to give a *Roe v. Wade * supporter communion, but that doesn’t mean that his actions are sanctioned by the Church.
And I’m not going to bash Evil Captor for an anti-Catholic bias. But I’ve certainly pointed it out, as have others. It’s no insult and no pitting to call a spade a spade.
As the New York Times pointed out when Kennedy was nominated:
What makes Kennedy not a hardcore Catholic? Because he’s voted pro-choice? If your real problem with Roberts is that he’s pro-life, then say so, rather than talking about his religion.
There are no examples of which we’re aware in which (1) a Catholic authority, with the appropriate jurisdiction, threatened to withold sacraments; and (2) a judge acted in response to such threat.
There are a substantial number of instances in which, for instance, someone could just as easily say that Ruth Ginsburg was “acting in conformity with her absolutist Jewish liberalism.” At least on the track record, liberal judicial activism ideology, and the absolutist view that, e.g., abortion must be legal in each and every circumstance, for ever, has provided a substantially more effective and binding form of “instruction for how to rule” as to the Catholic and Jewish liberal judges, than has any hypothetical Catholic mandate-issuance as to orthodox Catholic judges.
Isn’t that the issue, what works in practice? Or have you not stopped to think that Catholicism is far from the only hierarchical, “absolutist,” authoritarian, dogmatic belief system going? So far, in the modern era, I think it’s trailing the pack in terms of getting any results from its supposed mandates to elected and unelected officials.
A separate issue is the OP’s basis for designating Scalia and Thomas “scum,” but as I think that kind of speaks for itself and puts the OP in proper context, I’ll refrain.
No. And neither do Catholics have this rather silly and Jack-Chickish caricature that you have painted of them.
If Evil Captor would like to have this moved to the Pit, I’ll oblige him. But I have not seen anyone bashing Evil Captor so much as shredding his rather ludicrous OP. I agree this is hardly worthy of GD, but then I did not put it here.
Then by all means feel free to confine your debates who know what you do and think as you do. Should make for nice, brief debates!
[/quote]
You’re making an impossible leap here. It is possible to understand the principles of economics and debate them without having money. It is not possible to understand the the principles of Catholicism and debate them without having knowledge of the principles of Catholicism.
[/quote]
Is that the debate here? I don’t remember mentioning it in the OP.
Knowledge helps, certainly. But all you really need is a general knowledge of the rules of debate and a willingness to adhere to them. Frex, what you’re making is an argument to authority. “No one can discuss this subject unless they know what I feel they must.” Sorry, won’t work here.
I think “No one can meaningfully debate this subject if he doesn’t know very much about the subject” is a more accurate characterization of what he’s saying; it’s certainly not a falacious argument to make.
Yes. I am afraid the Pope will take Philadelphia by force. That’s what Roberts’ candidacy is really all about. You have me now, Bricker, you’re just too smart for me!
But you’re still confusing Catholic with Social Conservative. If you want to link a religion to social conservatisn, it would be the evangelical and funamentalist Protestant faiths, not Catholics. But even then, to criticize a justice simply because of his faith is, well, unAmerican.
Perhaps we should sentence EC to spend a few weeks debating with some Jesuits
Abortion? Birth Control? Censorship? These are currently pretty strong Catholic positions on issues currently. If you want to go back to the 1800s, join Bricker there, I’m sure you’ll have fun.
