Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:35 PM
Mon Nov 9
52 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
02/20/09
And like many others have said, can Jez lay off the Catholics? I'm technically lapsed, but I can assure you that the majority of US Catholics vote Democratic, and as feminists, you should all be well aware of the Catholic Worker Movement, which was founded by Dorothy Day and espoused women's rights, birth control, etc. I could go on about Catholic social teaching, but I'd rather not waste time making the same point that others in the comments have already said eloquently.
02/20/09
02/20/09
Like it has been said previously in the comments- Sure the Vatican is spouting off on occasion, but most Catholics are not drones of the Pope. I'm an atheist, but grew up Catholic, and the Catholic-bashing makes me wonder why only my parent's religion is up for this kind of article?
02/20/09
This would leave mostly liberal justices to decide the most contentious social-issue cases. Whooohoo!
02/20/09
I do think Prop 8 was fueled almost entirely, 100% by religious values, and I am uncomfortable with the line between church and state being crossed there. But someone voting on a complicated moral issue shouldn't be discredited simply because religious beliefs may inform their morality.
02/20/09
If Scalia has to go, then so does Kennedy. Kennedy is Catholic, and generally pretty conservative. As the swing vote, Kennedy has almost single handedly made america more safe for gays and lesbians. Don't believe me? Read his opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
02/20/09
Of course, "activist judges" on either side of the political spectrum are a concern, but as always, it's only activist when you don't agree with it! This is just a ridiculous article.
02/20/09
I can't speak for anyone else on this board but I enjoy Jezebel because I like to talk about equality for women as a goal and as the natural state of things.
But, in society, women just don't have equality, and most here agree. So, for me the next question is Why?
Others have different solutions, but mine frequently comes back to religion. For me, it's not about Catholic bashing so much as it's about puzzling out the whys things.
Please feel free to point out any errors in my logic or assumptions. In return I feel free to criticize where I think it's warranted.
02/20/09
It's kind of getting tiresome to explain one-self on this site over and over. :-(
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
The question really does turn on whether Scalia's personal Catholicism is at odds with his original intent reading of the Constitution. (FWIW, I'd be just as happy if held neither of those beliefs.) They may not totally not be. I think the newsworthy aspect here is less a return to anti-Catholic bigotry in this country, and more highlighting that the Pope is really starting to tighten ship as to who gets to stay a part of the Roman Catholic church.
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
pelosi and biden are also catholic, but pro-choice, so clearly catholics are able to form their own opinions, independent of offical church positions and i fear these kind of articles only increase fear of electic catholics to high office and/or the courts.
because, seriously, since when have catholics (me included) paid much mind to the pope? with all due respect to his holiness, he's pretty out of touch on most issues, and so far off base on this particular one, it's ridiculous.
politicians are obligated to cast votes in line with the wishes of those who elected them, not their own religious beliefs. likewise, judges are obligated to uphold the consitution and other statutes, not make decisions based upon their personal beliefs.
and that's the problem with scalia and roberts and thomas. it's not at all that they are catholic. it's that they have very conservative personal views and insert those into their legal opinions. they'd do that no matter what their religion was because they are pompous assholes.
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
That said, this is a horrible article that smacks of the same mindless, irrational anti-Catholic hysteria that arose when Kennedy took office, and Jezebel should be ashamed of itself for feeding into it.
Look, Catholics supposed to listen to the Pope, that's fine, whatever. We've all just listened. But Catholics believe in free will, Megan, and the percentage of any of us who obey the Pope on all things at any given time is astronomically low. Think of what he says as more like guidelines, really.
I ask that you please keep that firmly in mind the next time you write another of these posts on Monday or so. I really do enjoy your writing in general, but on this issue you just seem to be spouting prejudice.
I'm going to give Scalia enough credit as a jurist to say that I do not believe that he will react to this statement by the Pope in such a way as that would require him to resign.
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
And if anyone bothered to do a little research, they'd find out that first, the Pope has only very limited authority to speak to the universal church rather than to just give orders within his own diocese (as the bishop of Rome) and they ARE just guidelines and nice ideas unless our own local bishops agree; and, second, that the Papacy has only spoken infallibly twice since infallibility was defined at Vatican I, much as everyone likes to throw THAT little canard around.
But I suppose this kind of information would get in the way of adequately inflammatory cries of "Papistry!"
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
Good explanation of responsible dissent. :)
02/20/09
02/20/09
My mom is pretty devout but strikingly liberal. Whenever the Pope talks about birth control or the gayz or abortion, she just waves her hands and says, "They'll learn... eventually." and then says a rosary.
02/20/09
Another way of stating the same idea is the idea of "core" teachings and "adiaphora." "Core" teachings are the ones that are the center of the faith, without which you cannot call yourself an X. (For Catholics (and many other Christians), the Nicene Creed would be the big "core" statement.) "Adiaphora" means "stuff that doesn't really matter" (well, sort-of) ... the less-important teachings that you can dissent from if your conscience requires it, but still call yourself Catholic.
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
Bodysnarking I am, but Scalia woman-snarks. His offense is much greater than mine.
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
I self-identify as a lapsed Catholic because there are too many tenants of dogma that I don't hold to (plus I'm a whore who doesn't go to Church), similarly, I know many people who don't believe in abortion (at least for themselves) not because the Church says not to but because they believe it's a life. I.e. people hold those belief and are thus that religion and not necessarily are that religion and thus hold those beliefs.
02/20/09
I'm adding you as a friend.
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
02/20/09
Fact is there are many liberals and Democrats who regularly worship some god and there are many conservatives and Republicans who have no faith whatsoever. So it's a backwards to cry separation of Church and State and then politicize faith.
Course politicizing faith is all the rage with the Catholics and the EUSA too. So whatever.
02/20/09
I consider myself a devout Catholic, which, based on some of the comments on here means I can't get dressed in the morning without asking, What Would Benedict Do? I find the anti-Catholic undertones on here offensive as well, and simply wish I could have expressed that as well as you did.
That being said, I think there are way too many logical jumps in this both the Kmiec article and this explanation of it. It seems like he is trying way to hard to catch Scalia in a "gotcha!" situation. Get over yourself, Kmiec.
/sorry for rant, bad mood.
02/20/09
To be honest, the press contributes to these issues like crazy. The Pope could issues 12 statements on the evils of global warming, and 1 on the evils of abortion, and only the one on abortion would get coverage -- and it will be shrill, almost hysterical coverage in many quarters on both sides of the aisle. By covering THESE issues but ignoring the many issues where Catholicism (or whatever the religion of the day is) aligns with liberal POVs, it helps create and feed this vision of the conservative, backwards religious establishment -- to the point where even many Catholics are unaware their church has multiple statements on environmentalism, global warming, etc. And then the press covers the next story saying the same, because it confirms their pre-selected bias, and we get this giant echo chamber where only certain religious issues get coverage, and they tend to reinforce, over and over, the same stereotypes.
02/20/09