CT Blue

I’m so confused. As I said a few days ago, I have a theological degree from Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar School, but even I can’t figure this out. When John Kerry was running for president, Catholic Bishops pretty much threatened him with excommunication for his views on abortion. They made it clear that they expected Catholic politicians to adhere to Catholic Doctrine in matter of public policy:

Sen. John Kerry’s defiance of his Church’s condemnation of abortion and approval of gay marriage is not only a problem for him and Catholic bishops, but for individual Catholics as well, according to a leading Catholic layman and editor.

He says Catholic priests should refuse to give Holy Communion to Kerry even if their bishops have not specifically warned the senator that he is not to receive Communion.
That demand of excommunication for Kerry is made by Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine, the nation’s leading intellectual Catholic journal.

…

“It’s in the hands of his ordinary [bishop] – and when his ordinary has spoken and said that politicians should refrain from communion, he’s alluding to the fact that someone like Sen. Kerry should not consider themselves part of the Catholic community.”
…
St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke has specifically warned Kerry to avoid receiving communion when visiting his archdiocese. In Kerry’s home archdiocese, without mentioning him by name, Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley has said that Catholic politicians who do not vote in line with Church teachings “shouldn’t dare come to Communion.”

…

Asked if he believed that the bishops individually or together should tell renegade Catholic politicians such as Sen. Kerry that they must not receive communion and that they are excommunicating themselves by so doing, Hudson said: “I think that it’s what’s happening, little by little. When a bishop says that someone should refrain from receiving communion without using the word excommunication, he’s implying it. I think they are beginning to speak up, and Kerry’s ordinary has spoken up, although he hasn’t specifically mentioned Kerry as has Archbishop Burke. (Emphasis added)”

Well, that’s all perfectly reasonable.

Here’s where I get confused though. Apparently, when anyone suggests that Catholic politicians are “vot[ing] in line with Church teaching”, just like the Bishops expect, they are anti-Catholic bigots. Witness the reaction to Rosie O’Donnell’s recent statements:

“You know what concerns me?” O’Donnell asked last week on ABC’s “The View.” “How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?”

“Five,” said host Barbara Walters.

“Five,” O’Donnell said. “How about separation of church and state in America?”

which drew this reaction:

The comments sparked immediate outrage. Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Laura Ingraham has led the battle against O’Donnell, urging listeners to e-mail ABC to protest what she calls O’Donnell’s “anti-Catholic bigotry.”

“‘The View’s’ Rosie O’Donnell continues on her tear down the path of the Rich and Unhinged, this time with an anti-Catholic rant against the Supreme Court,” Ingraham wrote on her Web site. “Could she ever get away with denigrating the Muslim faith this way?”

Witness also (from the same article) the reaction to this cartoon from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Joseph Cella, president of the Catholic-based organization Fidelis, called the cartoon “venomous, terribly misleading and blatantly anti-Catholic.”

“The Supreme Court did not ‘follow marching orders’ from the Vatican or the bishops in the United States,” Cella said. “Instead, the court deferred to deliberative judgment of the people’s elected representatives protected by the Constitution.”

If Catholic Bishops demand that Catholic politicians vote in a manner consistent with Church teaching then it cannot be anti-Catholic to state or imply that a Catholic politician is doing just that. Not unless it is anti-Catholic to accuse someone of being a good Catholic.

In the case of Antonin (“fool for Christ“) Scalia and Clarence (just plain fool) Thomas, both of whom are reputed members of Opus Dei (as is Alito and probably John Roberts), it’s a joke to contend that Catholicism has nothing to do with their votes. You don’t join Opus Dei because you want to have a few drinks with the guys.

The Catholic Church has come a long way. In 1960 it was the Catholic candidate that upheld the separation of Church and State. Now the Church demands that Catholic politicians take their marching orders from the Church. It can’t complain when people assume that maybe that’s exactly what some of them are doing.

Note: It is apparently impossible to conclusively confirm that any of the justices are members of Opus Dei, since it is a secret society and no one in the Senate has the good sense to ask questions of nominees about membership in this society. Nonetheless, there is good reason to believe that the four named Justices are members.