"The Constitution gives every American the right of privacy,"
The Supreme Court gave Americans the dubious right to privacy, not the constitution.
Hint: there's more than one.
My head is spinning - where to begin? How about with a typographical error - when he identified himself as Catholic, it should have been in quotes:
But as a lifelong "Catholic" myself
here's another "error":
"'I do not speak for my church on public matters,' [John F Kennedy] told a group of ministers in Houston, 'and the church does not speak for me.' Kennedy gave the right answer."
HERETIC!
Besides the obvious untruth that the constitution dictates the right to privacy Press as a Catholic asks whether Roberts' loyalty will be to the Bible or to the Constitution.
Here his ignorance of Catholicism abounds notwithstanding that he was of all things an altar boy! Also he was a seminarian at one time. He is treating Catholic belief as if it were fundamentalist Protestantism. Catholic belief constitutes more than scripture. How about Faith and Tradition? Oh my, Press is so wrongheaded in all of his premises that this is really difficult to critique. I give up.
Beth V.
"If you are called on to decide an issue where your faith tells you one thing and the law tells you another, where is your loyalty? To the Bible or the Constitution?"
The Bible lists all sorts of Bad Stuff; the Constitution lists all sorts of Illegal Stuff. All of the illegal (assuming a perfectly just legal code) is bad; not all bad is illegal. The Bible therefore cannot contradict the Constitution, unless someone can demonstrate that the Constitution makes illegal something biblically good.
To me as I read this column on World Net Daily, by Bill Press, we don't have freedom of religion.
Two errors: the above mentioned "The Constitution gives every American the right of privacy" and "The Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II, said the death penalty is immoral."
1) Press cites Bill Donohue to support his assertion that Republicans are playing the Catholic card. But Bill Donuhue is not a professed Republican or Democrat (at least that I know of) nor is the Catholic League an instrument of any political party.
2) "Go ahead, accuse me of Catholic-bashing. But as a lifelong Catholic myself..."
Just because you were once a Catholic or currently a Catholic doesn't mean you aren't a Catholic-basher. Self-loathing exists after all.
3) "But it's fair to raise the religon question with Roberts..."
Then is it fair to raise the irreligion question with a non-believer? Will Press press a Judge Ginsberg: "If you are called upon to decide an issue where your secularism tells you one thing but the law tells you another, where is your loyalty?" It is ridiculous to think just because you're not religious you don't bring religious beliefs to bear.
As one philosopher said, the only way to avoid metaphysics is to say nothing.
4) "The Constitution gives every American the right of privacy"
No, it doesn't. Press needs to cite which article of the Constitution where that is found.
5) "Take the death penalty"
The Church, nor John Paul II, has not said the death penalty should be abolished. It has been suggested that the death penalty be used only when there is not a viable alternative for the safety of society.
6) "The Rehnquist court has already accepted a case testing the constitutionality of gay rights."
"Gay rights" is a nonsensical term. Homosexuals already have all the rights and privileges any other U.S. citizen has. The "gay rights" movement wants to create new rights and gay favoritism, just as bigamists would prefer bigamy rights and bigamy favoritism.
7) "Sen. Rick Santorum, also Catholic, told CNN that the Supreme Court was wrong, in 1965, to legalize counseling on contraceptive measures."
No, I'm going to bet the Senator said that the Supreme Court was wrong to find an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution.
8- "Kennedy gave the right answer."
Wrong answer!
"Go ahead, accuse me of Catholic-bashing. But as a lifelong Catholic myself..."
I can't recall the name for it, but this has to be one of the classic fallacies. Since when can a Catholic not be a Catholic-basher? Invalid inference.
"The Constitution gives every American the right of privacy, which includes the right of American women to control what happens to their own bodies."
No, at best the Constitution implies some right of privacy; but just what that right entails is subject to interpretation and application -- and of course, that's the job Mr. Roberts is seeking.
"The Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II, said the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished. Whose direction does Roberts follow?"
In fact, the late holy father never said it was absolutely wrong, nor did he mandate it's abolition.
There is a significant difference between the Church's teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil, and the pope's teaching that we'd be better off not using capital punishment, given a prevailing culture of death.
"Whose direction does Roberts follow? The president's or the pope's?"
An odd statement. Since when should judges follow the direction of the President? They swear to uphold the law...
"The Rehnquist court has already accepted a case testing the constitutionality of gay rights..."
Mr. Press implies a conflict here.
"And what about...condoms...or the practice of contraception? Again, the Catholic Church is strongly on one side, American law on the other. Whose side is Roberts on?"
Even supposing Church teaching requires outlawing condoms and contraceptives, this is not the job of the courts, but legislatures.
And, insofar as American law has, in the past, constrained access to contraceptives, it is simply wrong to say the only basis for any future limitation on them would come from "the pope."
Finally, the issue goes back to the exact shape of what the CONSTITUTION says about privacy; the Supreme Court couldn't, say, OUTLAW contraception or abortion.
"In 2000, Joe Lieberman was hammered with questions about being a Jew."
Another logical mistake. That Mr. Lieberman chose not to object from mistreatment does answer whether such behavior was out of bounds in the first place.
"What answer would John Roberts give? Until we ask, we'll never know."
In fact, it appears Judge Roberts did give an answer, to Sen. Durbin: if a conflict did arise, he would recuse himself.
>>The Church teaches that choosing abortion, even for rape or incest, is wrong and should be illegal.
Who believes the writer of this piece to be a Catholic? Not by the Magisterium's definition! The cafeteria is closed, "Bub"!
Cure
The US Constitution forbids making religion a litmus test (Article VI: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.")
Kelly:
A full court "press" of errors for you (plus, I'd love a DVD of TPOTC):
But as a lifelong Catholic myself, a former altar boy and seminarian, I say: Roberts' Catholicism is fair game.
Fallacious assertion of Catholic identity. It has as much teeth as Howard Stern saying he's a devout Jew.
Roe v. Wade, the case most talked about, is also the most obvious. The Constitution gives every American the right of privacy,...
Begging the question. Mr. Press is stating as fact the very point under dispute. He doesn't say WHERE this mythical right to privacy exists in the Constitution. He just throws it out there.
...which includes the right of American women to control what happens to their own bodies.
Untrue. American women are not permitted to sell their bodies, nor is it legal to inject illegal drugs into their veins. All individual rights are subject to some form of dilution.
The Church teaches that choosing abortion, even for rape or incest, is wrong and should be illegal. Which authority will Roberts follow? His faith or the law?
Opposition to abortion belongs not just to "faith" but to moral reasoning and philosophy. He makes it sound like a dogma to be blindly followed despite the facts.
The Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II, said the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished.
No she doesn't, no he didn't, no it shouldn't. A triple Press error whammy!
Whose direction does Roberts follow? The president's or the pope's? And do conservatives really want a justice who, because of his faith, could never vote for the death penalty?
SP Justices do not exist bench to do the will of presidents. Many conservatives don't consider capital punishment to be the most important litmus test. Press mentions "faith" here but many anti-death penalty jurists appeal not to faith but to secular presuppositions. Red herring!
Monsignor Peter Vaghi, Roberts' pastor in Bethesda, Md., preaches that contraception, even by married couples, is immoral.
So does the pastor of the Church in Rome, who is also the universal Pontiff. What's your point, Bill? Worry Roberts will jump up and reverse Griswold and install video cameras in bedrooms across the land?
Sen. Rick Santorum, also Catholic, told CNN that the Supreme Court was wrong, in 1965, to legalize counseling on contraceptive measures.
So what? Many political theorists believe the same thing. This doesn't mean they'll work passionately, day and night, for the abolition of Griswold. Santorum was making the legal, theoretical point that a "right to privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution.
Again, the Catholic Church is strongly on one side, American law on the other. Whose side is Roberts on?
All this does is express which side Bill Press wishes he'll be on.
Suppose Roberts were a Muslim. Do you think his faith would still be off the table? The
Yikes! I'm in trouble...some of you guys pointed out errors I (a) didn't catch or (b) am not sure can be really described as "errors."
Have no fear! I'm going to call in an outside consultant.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the real error was made by WorldNet Daily for publishing the thing, but that wasn't the question. (Which is why I didn't win the DVD.)
You're allowed to correct and/or modify your posts, or add to them. The contest officially ends tonight at 6:00 PM Eastern Time.
"Go ahead, accuse me of Catholic-bashing. But as a lifelong Catholic myself..."
I can't compete with the thoughtful comments here but this one reminded me of that Seinfeld episode where Tim Watley converts from Catholicism to Judaism so he can tell Jewish jokes. Jerry goes to complain to the priest, who asks, "And this offends you as a Jewish person?" Jerry answers, "No, it offends me as a comedian!" He also says, "now if Watley gets Polish citizenship there'll be no stopping him!"
It's an extremely widespread idea that people can make all kinds of inappropriate remarks about the groups they are a part of, without "technically" offending. It's a sort of "Let he who is of the same sin throw all the stones, but all the rest of y'all back off" thing.
It would be easier to say what he got correct. He spelled John Roberts name right, but maybe it would be easier to post the whole article.
"The Rehnquist court has already accepted a case testing the constitutionality of gay rights."
You mean some state, or the federal government, passed a "gay rights" law, and someone has brought a case claiming that the law is unconstitutional? Who knew?
The only two errors worth mentioning are:
1. That Mr. Press estimates himself as even worthy of "pontificating".
2. That anyone who is even vaguely acquainted with Mr. Press would bother reading anything he would write on this subject.
Since I already have TPOTC I'll share it with the runner up!!
All in fun!
Julie, I agree with you. How many times have we heard people say they can't be anti-catholic because they are "catholic" or more usually "raised catholic" (a euphemism that usually means lapsed catholic). Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII were all "raised Catholic" too. Does anyone doubt they were "anti-catholic"?
I wonder if Bill Press actually goes to Church every Sunday. It's not an out-of-bounds-question. After all, he's the one who brought up his religion in the first place.
I see from the comments that most of the errors have already been posted. I have a little different take. As troubling as it is to read a column like this, it seems to me that it is a little unfair to criticize Bill Press for making the same misrepresentations about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Catholic doctrine as the US Catholic Bishops do on a regular basis.
For example, a number of your respondents have pointed out the erroneous assertion that the Church has declared capital punishment to be immoral, when it has in fact expressly authorized its use when necessary. Even so, try finding an American bishop who will admit that the Catechism permits the use of the death penalty.
Similarly, Bill Press seems to believe that Supreme Court justices have, or ought to have, the authority to create or strike down laws that they don't agree with, rather than merely deciding whether laws passed by legislators are compatible with the text of the Constitution. I'm sure that most of your readers would count this as an "error", but I doubt that they will be surprised to learn that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops shares the Bill Press position: that Justices should not be selected on their ability to fairly and accurately interpret the Constitution, but rather to use their positions on the Court to shape public policy. Last month Bishop Skylstad (USCCB President) sent a letter to President Bush, in which he urged the selection of a jurist who would, among other things, protect the unborn; recognize the rights of minorities and immigrants; value school choice; and end the death penalty. Not a word on Constitutional interpretation.
Finally, the biggest error in the entire piece is the notion that the leaders of the Church take moral doctrine as seriously as Bill Press would have us believe. I don't know what John Roberts' personal views are, but it is ridiculous to assume that your average Catholic automatically follows, or has even been exposed to, the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Most of us have seldom, if ever, heard a homily on these topics. Our priests and bishops are far too busy lecturing us about “illegal wars” and “tax cuts for the rich”. If the Pope were to nominate a man like Bill Press purports John Roberts to be for the position of bishop – one who unapologetically accepted the Church’s teaching on abortion, contraception, homosexual intercourse, and the moral legitimacy of the death penalty, and who was content to leave contentious issues of war, immigration and economics to the sound judgment of the lay polity – I rather suspect that he would be attacked far more aggressively by the liberal Catholic establishment than Mr. Roberts will be by any members of the US Senate.
2. That anyone who is even vaguely acquainted with Mr. Press would bother reading anything he would write on this subject.
Chris, you fun-loving thing!
I know what you're saying -- and there's no dearth of pundits on Roberts and his religion. But to tell you the truth, the appearance of this tripe on the World Net Daily took me aback somewhat. (I love using terms like "taken aback.) Normally that's a pretty decent source.
okay - so it is past the close of the contest time...John F. Kennedy said, "I am an American first and a Catholic second." I wonder what God's response to him was upon his death.
Of course, that is not an error, it was simply John Kennedy garnering votes like any good politician.
Fun contest, Miss Kelly!
Dang. To which higher court do I appeal? The combox only allows 3000 character spaces -- too few to catalogue Mr. Error's presses.
Please advise!
Judge Kelly:
What saith the court? I ran out of space half-way through my Index of Press Errors...(please render a judgment before I descend farther into the muck of pitifulness.)
Press says that Roberts may have to choose between immorality and the law. This is not the job of a judge especialy a supreme court judge. The first reason being the church teaches and has taught for at least 800 years (but I suspect even longer) that immoral acts do not have to be against the law. The immorality of artificial contraception or divorce does not mean that these things must be illegal. An action can be legal in the eyes of the state, yet still the action can be immoral. The seven deadly sins fall under this category. It would be difficult to make pride illegal even though it is the root of all sin.
Secondly, the job of a justice is to determine if a law is constitutional not if it is moral. Therefore a man or woman may spew hate on an internet site. It is not Judge Roberts job to determine if this is nice or moral; rather, it is his job to determine if the constitution affords the spewee the right to spew hate.
The left is so quick to call the right theocrats, when it is they that want to enforce morality from the bench
"Roberts, in fact, would join Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy as the fourth Catholic on the court."
Justice Thomas is Episcopalian.
Jake, nope, he's a Catholic. Raised (including a stint in the seminary), rebelled (wandering into the Episcopalian world) and returned (around late 90s, he announced to a crowd at a speaking engagement at his alma mater Holy Cross College that he had formally returned to the Catholic Church that very morning. (There's an irregular marriage in the back story.)
Thanks, Patrick, for the correction. I am apparantly behind the times. I vaguely remember (from the media around the time of his confirmation hearings) that he was raised something else, but attended a Catholic elementary school, entered the Church in his teens but found there were some things he just couldn't take and left for the PECUSA. My question is, how much of my vague memory is accurate? Was he Catholic when he was appointed to the Supreme Court, or was his reversion later? Is my memory, that he was not a cradle Catholic, but did go to Catholic schools, simply false?
Episcopalian at the time of Senate confirmations, returned to the Church afterward. Thomas was actually in a St. Louis seminary for a time but encountered incident after incident of overt racism. He left the sem, and then left the Catholic fold altogether.
As I said, his first marriage, begun in the early 1970s, ended in divorce. His formal reversion to Catholicism I believe was in 1997 or 1998.
Commenting by HaloScan
