AmericanPapist Comments
It was nice to see Ambassador Boggs there as well with her daughter Cokie.
And please pray for Justice Kennedy's breakfast, as it often depends on what he ate that morning as to how he will vote...
Justice Bryer was in attendance? Does he go to the Red Mass each year? Is he intersted in exploring the Christian Faith?
I'll pray for him.
President Bush was there a few years ago. I certainly hope he is interested in exploring the Christian faith.
As for the breakfast, it was rather ordinary. Eggs, bacon, hash browns and some pastries. Had to walk down the hall to get a Bloody Mary.
Having heard Abp Dolan speak, I can imagine that his remarks were even more impressive in person than they already are in print.
I heard a couple of smirking commentators on CNN questioning whether it was "appropriate" for Justices of the Supreme Court to be present at the Red Mass.
Ah yes, a public official venturing into a place of worship . . . shocking and scandalous to the Left, I guess.
Apparently the Justices are to be excluded from the Free Exercise Clause!
I don't understand why it's so important for liberals on the court to be defeated. The Catholic Church's social justice teachings, I would argue, fall in the realm of liberalism (I use that not in the classical sense of the word). Look at a case heard yesterday. Instead of following the sentencing guidelines of 19-22 years in prison for a crack cocaine user, a judge gave him only 15 (which is absurd in and of itself, especially when the more affluent use powder cocaine and get less time). Liberals tend to focus on rehabilitation rather than such lengthy punishment. Are they to be shamed for that? Or for seeking to extend legal rights to prisoners at Gitmo? Or for upholding the voting rights of all? And what about the conservatives who will likely vote to uphold the constitutionality of lethal injections and flout Church teachings in doing so? Liberals on the bench aren't always the evil that conservatives perceive them to be. And while this post may suggest I'm a flaming liberal, I'm really not. I just like the Constitution being protected.
Capital punishment doesn't violate Church teaching, and the concept that rehabilitation trumps punishment in Catholic social teaching is simplistic and misguided.
With regard to capital punishment and Church teaching, see paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, which reads:
-----------------
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent.""
----------------
As I recall it, this precise language was not originally in the new catechism, but was included after issuance of "Evangelium Vitae."
Although it does not technically "forbid" the death penalty, it limits it to situations of "absolute necessity," which I believe makes it practically forbidden.
Don't be to taken in by Archbishop Dolan's remarks. He needs to stay home and start to clean up the mess in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. His always being absent from the archdiocese does not solve the many problems.
Nathan, the "liberals" on the supreme court, as a whole, tend to hand down decisions at-odds with Church teaching more than the "conservatives." The issue isn't their political stance as such so much as their general voting record. fair enough?
Taken in, exactly how? Margaret? What in the abp's remarks were meant to fool someone? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?
AmericanPapist said:
" Nathan, the 'liberals' on the supreme court, as a whole, tend to hand down decisions at-odds with Church teaching more than the 'conservatives.' The issue isn't their political stance as such so much as their general voting record. fair enough?"
What are some examples from last term?
The comments on this blog really seem to be motivated more by Republican party ideology than by Catholic social teaching.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Tom, on matters of a woman's right to choose, I totally agree that the liberal side of the Court almost always goes against the Church on that particular issue. I'm not thrilled with their decisions on issues of life according to my interpretation of the law. But I also think it would be fair to say that the conservative members, all of whom are Catholic, are just as prone to go against the Church on a host of other issues, even if they are secondary in importance to matters involving abortion. A lot of people, and I'm not including you or anyone else on this blog, are willing to look the other way on these secondary matters so long as the Catholic justices uphold bans on abortion. I've never understood why these people do that. Whether you have a Catholic voting for women's choice and voting against the death penalty or vice versa, either way, it's cafeteria Catholicism from the bench. Personally, I feel bad for the five Catholics on the bench. If they do something that goes along Church lines, they get vilified for following Rome rather than the Constitution (which makes it less likely of getting Catholics on the bench in the future), and if they go against the Church, people think they should be denied Communion.
I'm pretty bad at being motivated by GOP ideology considering the candidate I'm most interested in for President is the least similar to the GOP mainstream out there (ron paul).
If, however, you mean by "gop ideology" that I give a high value to life issues - you're darn right.
Politics is the science of the lesser evil, of course I want the justices to reflect all of Catholic social teaching, but as you've said yourself life issues hold a greater priority. you do what you can and pray.
I'm not so sure the "gop ideology" gives a high value to life issues.
Though it is rather tortured and compromised I support the gop's position that we should appoint better judges who will one day reverse Roe (even though a number of these appointments have not produced as promised) and then go state by state and pass laws making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions (though not, as President Bush and the party National Chairman say, making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion) and hoping that the local authorities will actually enforce these laws and the non-complaint states don’t result simply in a shifting of the locale of abortions rather than a reduction.
Complicated, long term, less than providing total protection for the unborn, but I support it nevertheless.
On the other hand, we have a GOP that has no interest in saving unborn lives should that mean a tax increase on the rich.
Earlier this year, the Bush Administration testified before Congress on its budget for the Department of HHS. The Administration was asked which federal program did the most to reduce abortions. Of course, it was a program they were cutting because 'we need to cut government spending."
On the other hand, we have a GOP that has no interest in saving unborn lives should that mean a tax increase on the rich.
You see, this is the kind of idiotic statement that just merits no serious consideration. While I'm sure there are a few members of the party that aren't as serious as we are when it comes to matters such as abortion, this sort of broad-swipe is just not based on any substantive evidence.
... let alone the fact that my premise (that "the GOP was more serious on life issues") is simply a matter of generalization. i normally focus on individuals and issues. i don't think you can sign-on to any of the US major parties because each of them have their grave faults.
Commenting by HaloScan
