Scalia's response was entirely appropriate, because the question asked was disgusting. The assumption that one can't be impartial because one worships publicly is so offensive that it isn't deserving of a proper answer.
I suspect that reporters, who view themselves as impartial, have adopted a similar mentality. They don't engage in religion, don't publicly worships (and probably don't do it privately) because they believe it'll impair their (alleged) impartiality. Their whole livestyle is built up around the facade of impartiality, when in reality they're the most left-wing of professions according to numerous surveys. Of course, apart from the assumption that Catholics should not be judges, there is also a parallel assumption that Catholics should not be reporters, or anyone else in society that must be "impartial." Who knows - maybe the local dogcatcher cannot be Catholic because he wouldn't capture unleashed dogs owned by Catholics, or something.
This hatrid knows no limits.
But if I were Scalia, I wouldn't mince words. Next time, he should just plain give the reporter the finger.
This touches upon both Bible passages the left is so fond of throwing in our faces:
Judge not, lest ye be judged
and
Do not worship on the street corners like the hypocrites.
Of course, in most rational societies, the notion of non-religious, non-Catholic, and anti-religious folk using a text they don't believe in (The Bible) to fight an argument would be laughable.
In America, it's considered "dialogue", in the sense that it's equitable to the kind of arguing four-year-olds do on the playground.
Last time I read the Constitution, all American citizens - including Justices - had the right and freedom to exercise their religious beliefs.
Or has that changed, as the left would like it to?
As vile as the question was, I would prefer that prominent Christians didn't flip the bird in public...
Way to go, Justice Sopra... I mean, Scalia!
Hence more hatchet jobs like the one we just saw in the New Republic.
It's still all about the last election (and the appointment of judges like Roberts and Alito).
"Theocracy" can be loosely translated as "democracy-that-doesn't-yield-the-results-I-think-
it should."
"public worship" -- I look forward to the construction of the catacombs, so we can go back where we belong.
GregM, there are times when giving the middle-finger salute to some yaboo and telling him to "f--- off" are entirely appropriate.
I once heard the story about a woman in confession, full of remorse because she had given another woman the finger. The priest asked what the other woman did/said to upset her so. The woman said, "Well, I had all my kids in the car with me, and the woman saw them and started yelling at me, telling me I was wrong to have so many children, that it was bad for the environment and overpopulation, and I just lost it and gave her the finger."
The priest's reply: "She said that?? Next time, give her two fingers!"
Instructing the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy, and there are times when that amounts to what Scalia said and did to that photographer. Bully for him.
Great.
Just for the record. Justice Scalia denies that he made an obscene gesture. Instead, he says he made a gesture designed to convey the sentiment, "I don't care [about what people think about his refusal to hide the fact that he is Catholic]." Read his letter to the Herald, it's a classic. It was only after Justice Scalia responded that the photographer claimed Justice Scalia said "va fan culo." The reporter admits that she did not hear Justice Scalia say this phrase.
What's good for Mary Karr is good for Justice Scalia:
Profanity is not objectively sinful when one is certain no one in one's audience will be offended; otherwise it demonstrates a lack of charity that lies at the root of all sin. This is why St. Paul preached in Ephesians:
"No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear."
We let our desire to be au courant trump our charity for those more sensitive than ourselves.
PVO
watch out-- Justice Scalia attends the traditional Mass.......
Tim:
So does my son. So do many of my friends. Your point?
Scalia is a delight! The brightest member of the court and the one who possesses the liveliest sense of humor. That is a very rare combination.
Let's get past the non-story of the gesture, and focus on the real story of Scalia's stupid comments in Switzerland-- where he basically said the prisoners at Guantanamo had no rights and that the Geneva conventions did not apply. The fool may have to recuse himself now from the Hamden case, which, ironically (with Roberts already out) increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
Sean,
I can see telling an antagonist like the one in your story that it's none of their business or shut up, and turn your back on them. To to essentially tell someone "Fu** You" just strikes me as base and vulger.
"The fool may have to recuse himself now from the Hamden case, which, ironically (with Roberts already out) increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome."
Actually, no. Because his comments were consistent with his dissents from prior cases, and thus, were not prejudicial to the current case.
Tony A.
If God himself came down and said,
"All humans are to be treated according to their dignity based in the image of Me that they carry...however laws of man like Geneva do not apply to all men in all cases"
THEN WOULD YOU CONSIDER that those who disagree with you regarding the applicability of a certain treaty/convention to certain individuals might not be de fide?
It's good to hear that Justice Scalia didn't use obscenities in public; the need for good manners aside, Christians supposed to return blessings when we are cursed.
To to essentially tell someone "Fu** You" just strikes me as base and vulger.
Of course it does, Greg. But if you're trying too talk to a Swede, you don't address him in Swahili. Vulgar and obnoxious are this reporter's milk language, and Scalia was using it. Kind of courteous of him, when you look at it that way. 
Not to associate myself with Tony's comments in any other way, but I do think Scalia should recuse himself. See this quote:
If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial.
That's a personal, familial bias. There's no way he should help decide this case after saying that.
Tony A:
The fool may have to recuse himself now from the Hamden case, which, ironically (with Roberts already out) increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
Then he had better get in his Federal Judge Recusal Time Machine, becuase Hamdan was already on Tuesday.
Transcript here (PDF).
er... argued on Tuesday.
It's too late to recuse, he was at arguments in Hamdan, making the solicitor general's arguments for him.
The Herald is a right wing, Murdoch, NY Post sort of paper. Odd. The question is ridiculous, but I don't know that they're elitist anti-Catholics so much as stupid on general principle.
GregM, I guess I don't have a problem with the occasional F-bomb, especially a well-placed F-bomb. I come to you by way of a couple of rugby clubs, the Marine Corps, 10 years in the news trade including a couple of daily newspapers, and many, many, taverns across the U.S. and abroad. To the extent that I respond to God's grace (I often fall short), I am a daily communicant. But I savor the well-timed F-bomb.
"Scalia is a delight! The brightest member of the court and the one who possesses the liveliest sense of humor. That is a very rare combination."
I respectfully disagree, Donald! Oh, no, not with regard to Scalia -- you're dead on about him -- he's a hoot, and runs circles around his colleagues in terms of brain power. But the smartest people I know are also the funniest people I know -- not a rare combination in my experience at all!
Scalia should be denied communion.
By his support of the death penalty, he has openly flouted Catholic teaching. He is as good as an abortion supporter in disobeying the teaching.
Leave alone his position on torture.
Before you jump the gun, you might consider that the prudential reading of the teaching as enunciated under the current conditions of the USA, makes it against the teaching.
But for you it wont matter. Because you are just using Catholicism as a cover for lily white political power.
Torture, unjust war, nope nothing but some hot air. When it comes to vote, vote for the a party that does evil, rather than permit it.
No wonder you cant convince women who abort their children. You are such liars.
The failure of the pro-life cause will be mostly because of hypocrites like you. McClintok vs Arnold vs Davis, the coming Guliani vs the previous Kerry,
the lies past present and future.
Read the Catechism. Political authorities are permitted recourse to the death penalty.
"But for you it wont matter. Because you are just using Catholicism as a cover for lily white political power."
Nice try injecting racism to stop a discussion. Don't waste your time. Mau Mauing the flak catchers, to quote Tom Wolfe, doesn't work anymore.
"But the smartest people I know are also the funniest people I know -- not a rare combination in my experience at all!"
I am happy for your experience Kath. In my experience, some of the smartest judges and attorneys I have personally encountered, unfortunately, have not had well-developed senses of humor.
Who let the troll in? Zippy?
As in Zippy the Pinhead?
It looks like the photographer was fired...
http://news.bostonherald.com/
loc...rticleid=132932
I agree with Zippo that Scalia is a major dissenter, an ultimate cafeteria catholic right the right. How rare it is that his catholicism shines through his judgements. But I would not deny him communion, for the same reason I would not deny somebody like John Kerry communion.
"Political authorities are permitted recourse to the death penalty."
Not quite. Only when there is no alternative, which in modern society (as John Paul said) is practically never the case.
But defining the "practically never" remains within the prudential judgment of the state, not the USCCB.
PVO
"But defining the "practically never" remains within the prudential judgment of the state, not the USCCB."
That is absolutely correct, and I say that as an opponent of the death pealty.
Could somebody explain this kerfuffle to me?
At first the media were reporting that Scalia made an obscene gesture, etc.
Then the media reported Scalia's explanation as to the meaning of the gesture, which was not obscene (or even vulgar, except perhaps to exceptionally prissy folks whose feeling are always compromised anyway).
Then some academic weighed in supporting the original report's interpretation by noting that the gesture described by Scalia has varying meanings depending on culture. This "prof" gave examples, none of them Sicilian and none obscene, so it seemed like a very weird non seq to me. Can anyone explain?
Then a photograph was distributed that was similarly reported to substantiate the original report's interpretation, but I don't see how. Instead the photo seems reasonably consistent with Scalia's interpretation, but reports say otherwise with no explanation at all.
What gives?
Tony, supporting the death penalty does not make one a dissenter. There is room for disagreement on this issue and whatever misgivings the CCC has about capital punishment, it does not forbid it.
Why should Scalia's Catholicism "shine through his judgments"? He is no bishop or priest. He is a layman, in a legitimate secular profession, which he pursues in a way fully consistant with his status as a member of the laity. In that capacity, he has every right to write legal opinions in the best way he sees fit, consistent with natural law and American constitutional law, and without the Church looking over his shoulder. To suggest otherwise is rank clericalism.
Mr. Dailey,
I fully agree that Scalia is not a dissenter based on his support for the death-penalty.
However, if Catholicism means anything in everyday living, it means that it should inform and influence all we do. How this bears itself out is a matter of discernment and calling, but it should be as possible to be a Catholic Priest as it is to be a Catholic Supreme Court Justice, or a Catholic Physicist, or a Catholic Marine, etc. Their actions will be completely different as fitting their vocation, but their Catholicism should not and cannot be divorced from any sphere of their lives.
And as you rightly point out, it is possible to still be Catholic while placing a well-timed F-bomb 
Scalia is, as commented above, the ultimate cafeteria Catholic. Long time ago Secret Agent Man wrote a detailed post on why. I dont have the time to dig it up now.
He is not in anyway principled either too. He might come up with brilliant arguments to justify his position, but that does not mean anything. Most of moral philosophy is about coming up with arguments that justify why evil that benefits me is OK, while that which does not benefit me is not.
Scalia is the epitome of the saying "power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely"
Human law is not anything holy - it is just an expression of political will.
And the right has no claim on holiness.
As for the liberal media,...
"tax and spend liberals" is still the bogeyman. I would really like to see the liberal spenders in the last few years of conservative government.
Did you ever see "borrow and spend conseravtives" in the liberal media?
You guys are living in a bubble. You think that if you repeat it enough it will become true. That all intellectuals are somehow out to discredit you when the facts dont fit your beliefs.
Unfortunately, the chickens will finally come home to roost. You think that its the immigrants and the Chinese and what not are the reason.
Whereas its the end result of Scalia and Bush and Delay. All delusions of power have resulted in debt and decay.
But as in all manias, "this time it is different"
billy,
You might consider paragraphs anchored in logic and reason rather than stream of consciousness babble.
Just a thought.
billy -
That was a nice long strand of unsubstantiated one-liners. Next time you can try, oh, I don't know, some facts to back up your argument. That is, of course if you have an argument.
Justice Scalia's last line of his letter is priceless: in response to the reporter calling him an Italian jurist, Scalia says, "I am, by the way, an American Jurist."
Tony A
Justice Scalia said the Geneva conventions do not apply to the people in Guantanamo? And of course he is right. They don't, never have. And foriegn terrorists in military custody overseas have no rights under the US Constitution, never have. Us Military personnel are subject to the Constitution and to the UCMJ, and have been punished for violating them, far more than by any other nation.
Oh, and , of course, we do apply the Geneva Conventions on the rights of prisoners of war to irrregular(!) combatants as a matter of our policy, but that is our decision, not something they are entitled to.
As to his Catholicism, I have seen nothing in his opinions that would be contrary to Catholic doctrine- as it is and not as you would like it to be.
billy, unsubstantiated rants may fly on Daily Kos, but they impress no one here. Come back when you can produce something resembling a coherent argument.
The Geneva Convention, by its terms, doesn't apply to terrorists (who, by the way, are evil) and guerrillas (who aren't necessarily so). Their protection is the universal moral law and the customary laws of war, both of which preceded the Geneva Convention. As human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, such people are entitled to protection but not to the rights enumerated in the Geneva Convention. Whatever treatment they get--whether codified in a treaty or not--it must conform to the moral law.
"He is not in anyway principled either too"
"Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely." (Absolutely what?)
"Human law is not anything holy." Shouldn't tha be "not nothing holy?"
"Unfortunately the chickens will come home to roost. You think its the immigrants and the Chinese and what not are the reason.
whereas its the end result of Scalia and Bush and Delay."
Does anybody know what the (alleged Scalia expletive deleted) Billy is talking about? I is the produckt of our fine publick scool edjewcasion sistim bought and payed for by tax and spend liburals but his logick was far above my rationalitizing abilitees. Could someone xplane
A Catholic jurist is constrained to apply the law that his cousins (not necessarily Catholic) in the Legislature have enacted. It's the difference between having to say what the law already is and getting to say what you think it ought to be. Unless you really want a judicial Super-Duper Legislature.
And under Geneva, there is not much to prevent terrorists from being shot at point of capture. Or boiled in oil at point of capture - there really isn't much you CAN'T do to them. Under Geneva.
Mark:
1. I'm sorry to see you trafficking in the Herald's lies. Scalia didn't say "Va fa'n culo" - this was fabricated only after his "gesture" was revealed (to the white citizens of Boston) to be perfectly "family friendly." The Herald needed something extra to keep the controversy going.
2. The phrase in question means "Up yours [ass]" not "f--- you"
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
