Rightwing tries to label Democrats "anti-Catholic" -- WWRD (What Will Ratzinger Do?)

Yesterday a story swirled around the media that Sen. Richard Durbin on Friday had asked Supreme Court nominee John Roberts what he, as a devout Roman Catholic, would do relative to rulings on things the Roman Catholic Church declared immoral.

The story, as related in the Los Angeles Times by a professor not at the meeting, itself become the story. The New York Times summarized:

An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, included an account of Mr. Durbin's question. Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash.

If Roberts had, or if he did, answer that way, it should render him unfit to serve. However, a spokesman for Durbin stated that the story was wrong. (By "wrong," I assume was meant "in error," not "immoral.")

Immediately, the "anti-religious" card was play by the likes of the religious right organization currently headed by Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council, and Fidelis.org, a Roman Catholic religio-political organization, as well as in the Religious Right's media vehicles, and all Democrats were broadly painted as "anti-Catholic."

But some, like Amy Sullivan on Beliefnet, see manufactured outrage, and note that even before any Democrats had sounded an opinion about Roberts at all, right after Roberts was announced by the President, conservative and Religious Right groups were already shouting that Democrats were on the attack against Roberts for his religion (or, seemingly worse yet, "attacking" his wife, who is active in adoption advocacy but also anti-abortion groups).

Sullivan:

[I]t is outrageous for conservatives to argue that Democrats, by virtue of concerns about whether Roberts would uphold Roe v. Wade, are injecting religion into the confirmation process. Accusing those who disagree with them of harboring religious bias is no more becoming or compelling for conservatives than it is when liberals lodge the same charges with race. What’s more, it sullies the process from the very beginning for no good reason.

This could all play-out unfortunately for the Democrats unless they are careful. The issues have been put out there: 1. Would a Catholic doctrine or papal pronouncement affect your ruling, Mr. Roberts? 2. Does your wife's anti-abortion activism affect you? The second question is to be avoided, and will be. The whole topic of the spouse of someone nominated for the Supreme Court needs to stay pretty much irrelevant.

But the first question has some aspects that may warrant exploring. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict the XVI, supported the withholding of Communion (excommunication of a degree) from officials who voted to support abortion. For a Roman Catholic, if orthodox, this can literally put ones soul in jeopardy. So, the question that still might need to be asked is, "Mr. Roberts, you say you will not let your religion influence your judgments as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Are you saying that you're willing to have Communion denied you--perhaps by papal decree--if you should find yourself ultimately deciding that you must uphold the law of the land, which is that abortion is legal in some situations and under certain conditions? Or, Are you confident the Pope would allow you to vote however you wish, without consequences that, you might believe, could jeopardize your soul?"

In the end, it will probably play out more or less as David Brooks has predicted. Roberts isn't in demeanor a Scalia. He's more likable, by all accounts. Democrats were already put on the defensive by the Durbin story. (Some on Daily Kos yesterday suggested that the Durbin story was planted by the Bush administration, so that conservative Republicans and the Religious Right had occasion to brand Democrats "anti-religious.")

If nothing else, now comes a real test of the leadership of Sen. Harry Reid, the political acumen of Sen. Clinton, who's spoken about abortion a lot recently, and the intellect and nerve of Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is on the Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts. They will need to call the "anti-Catholic" bluff so dear to the conservative religio-political coalition influencing and actually governing much of America today, and at the same time ask the appropriate, tough questions, even the one about excommunication suggested above, for the sake of determining Roberts' viability as a nominee for the highest court in the land.

Comments

[Brian]

I am not that familiar with the theology of the religious right, but do they not basically believe that Catholics are not Christians? That Catholics are not saved?

Interesting how they are standing up for Roberts if that is the case.

Obviously they can share some values, but it seems a little self-serving to champion someone who in your Church life consider to be unsaved.

[bernie]

oh boy
*chuckle*
where to begin? :)

well, the religious right is a political movement, not a religious one, at the end of the day. that's important to keep in mind.

there are probably those--many, in fact--in the religious right (that is, especially those among the leaders, from the local levels to the national) who do believe that the heaven-bound roman catholic is relatively rare indeed (though probably more common than a congregationalist!), simply by virtue of the fact that most of the religious right are fundamentalist, conservative evangelical, or conservative charismatic or pentecostal christians, who are rigorously protestant.

however, while belief in things like the infallibility of the pope, or the immaculate conception, or the efficacy of infant baptism are anathema to most protestants (and the religious right has mos6tly been, until recently, a profoundly protestant-populated movement, but less so all the time), none of those roman catholic doctrines are mutually exclusive to a belief in the literal virgin birth, life, death, and bodily resurrection of jesus, or his divinity.

therefore, from the more common protestant perspectives, nothing about being roman catholic damns one, per se. it's just that, from the protestant perspective, the accretion of tradition, canon law, history, political corruption, etc., etc., has constructed a roman catholic church/tradition that is less likely to adequately and directly communicate to the believer in the pew those things that are necessary for salvation.

but, at another level, your point is 100% right: nothing about BEING ROMAN CATHOLIC saves your soul, according to the protestant perspective; only those things about being roman catholic that happen to be critical to being a born-again christian--which basically boil down to the surrender of (appeal from) self to the personal, divine christ that saves; yet, even then, the efficacy of salvation is only through the grace of god ultimately; nothing a person "does" saves them, supposedly, according to common protestant thought. that's actually a big source of tension historically between protestantism and roman catholicism. roman catholicism stress "doing" a lot of stuff (baptism, confession, communion), but protestantism de-emphasizes the human role in salvation beyond ones acceptance of and submission to the divine christ jesus.

clearly, what is bringing together so many roman catholics and protestants under the umbrella of the religious right is a common belief in the special role of the christian in redeeming society, and a common misconception about america's founding as supposedly a "christian" nation (it was culturally nominally christian but legally and formally utterly SECULAR--by intention!), and a belief that unless countered, all of america's secularizing influences will basically eventually (quickly) make the nation a place where it's uncomfortable to be a [judgmental] christian of any sort. (how those "influences" came to be equated with things like funding for the arts and taxation fairness is a whole different issue that has to do with the way the GOP and neo-cons use the religious right, and how the leaders of the religious right use the rank and file)

let's face it though: the religious right is a political movement, and politics always makes strange bedfellows (i love that phrase in this context if also taken in light of the whole gay marriage canard), and certainly roman catholics and protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists are coming together as never before in the history of this nation to affect our laws and culture.

hope that helps a bit. you might want to check out the religious right watch glossary, and explore terms on wikipedia.com.

[skywind]

Please. Can't we just say that Roberts is devout, and leave the Catholic part out of it? It is dangerous to conflate Catholicism with pro-life views. Consider the Catholic-hating fundamentalist dominionists who also believe it is appropriate, even necessary, to allow one's religious beliefs to dictate their performance in public life.

Full disclosure--I am a pro-choice, Democratic Catholic.

[bernie]

that's a good point
there are pro-choise roman catholics
and certainly what should be at issue relative to roberts and roe v. wade is not that "he's catholic" per se, but that he's "pro-life"

however, relative to the issue of the real possibility of benedict xvi supporting the withholding of communion from officials who are pro-choice, roberts' roman catholicism itself is relevant.

[bernie]

ignore the typos please :) ("choise?" it's been a long day already)

[paperwight]

I am a pro-choice, Democratic Catholic.

Not for long. I reckon Pope Ratzenberger will be busy about the lord's work, setting up tests for the flock to pass on the below-the-waist issues so dear to his heart.