President Kennedy on the Catholic Faith counseling Public Officials

Much has been written and said about Senator and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy's address of to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in Sep 1960. The key point he made was this:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Yet, there is another statement President Kennedy made concerning the Catholic Faith informing the views of public officials. Father Robert Araujo recently posted on the Mirror of Justice blog a part of the president's address at the Centennial Celebration at Boston College in April 1963. Fr Araujo writes:

[H]is remarks made as President at Boston College stand in contrast to his remarks to the Protestant ministers as candidate for President. In commenting on the recently released Papal Encyclical Pacem in Terris, the President said at Boston College: "As a Catholic, I am proud of it, and as an American I have learned from it." In his further remarks on the encyclical's "penetrating analysis," the President continued by saying "that document surely shows that on the basis of one great faith and its tradition there can be developed counsel on public affairs that is of value to all men and women of good will."

It is true that the encyclical Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth) was the first encyclical to be addressed to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. As well, the president was speaking to a much different audience then he was in Houston almost three years before. Still, it is interesting to read these words from the same man who is invoked by so many as the proper example of a public official separating his faith from his policy views. The next time a Gov Cuomo or Sen Kerry brings up the president's address in Houston they should be reminded of his words two and half years later as president in Boston.

(Note: I have been unable to find the complete text of President Kennedy's address in Boston. I would appreciate a note in the comments from anyone who may come across a copy.)

Liberation Theology 101

We have heard a lot about liberation theology in the past twenty years. Usually, the setting for applications of liberation theology--the correct jargon is "praxis"--is Latin America. One of the leading theologians in this area, Jon Sobrino, S.J., even shares the same Spanish last name I have. But now I want to apply a bit of liberation theology north of the border to Louisiana and especially New Orleans. This attempt is apt because one of the nicknames of New Orleans before Katrina was "northern Honduras" and not a few residents enjoyed referring to Louisiana as a "banana republic" even before the chaos of the hurricane. So let's start.

The issue is what to do about housing for the hurricane evacuees scattered throughout the rest of the country. The federal government has sensibly decided to start giving evacuees cash so that they can get out of shelters or the homes of friends and relatives and rent apartments. The goal is to provide "the maximum amount of flexibility and freedom to decide [by evacuees] where they want to relocate and what they want to do over the next few months" (see this news story).

But Governor Blanco of the Democratic Banana Republic of Louisiana is aghast. She wants no cash housing payments to displaced persons. Instead, she wants Louisiana evacuees put in hotels, motels, and--get this--trailer parks. She fears that many will decide to find apartments out of state and may end up saying good-bye permanently to the Banana Republic that utterly failed to evacuate them from New Orleans before the storm and so left many of them trapped in a flooded city that erupted in widespread looting. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff replies that "not everybody can or necessarily wants to get into a trailer."

After bungling the pre-hurricane evacuation, why would the Madame Governor of the Banana Republic want to put people in trailers that are notorious for being easy targets for tornadoes? Will she evacuate them from trailers before a tornado hits? I doubt it given that you usually get less warning of tornadoes than you do for hurricanes. My opinion is that she wants to corral the evacuees so that she can eventually reconstitute the concentration of impoverished and dependably Democratic voters in the blighted and drug-infested neighborhoods of New Orleans. It reminds me of how Pharaoh's soldiers chased the Israelites as they fled through the waters in the Exodus. Pharaoh wants his wards back.

In contrast, the Bush administration is empowering individuals and families to make their own decisions--to rent wherever they want to rent or even to give up the rent subsidy and decide to live in a trailer park back in Louisiana. But the Banana Pharaoh wants no choice--she fears choice. Poor people who never dreamed of being able to relocate from a city that was already a failed community prior to the hurricane now get the same chance I and many other New Orleanians had to find better communities elsewhere in the United States. But, in an eery and exact parallel to liberal Democratic opposition to school vouchers, the Democratic governor does not want her constituents to have a choice. I guess the only choice liberal Democrats reliably favor is the choice to abort.

What can liberation theology bring to this issue? Let the people freely choose to take advantage of this new Exodus to act in the best interests of their families, to have the same choices the more affluent have, the same freedom of choice that I and many others had. Governor, stop trying to force people back and corral them into trailer parks. Governor, let the people who want to depart go.

The Contribution of John Paul the Great to Catholic Social Teaching

In a recent talk in Michigan, theologian George Weigel, well-known as biographer of John Paul the Great, spoke about the social teaching of the Church. He specifically spoke about the contributions of John Paul the Great ("JPG"). Weigel gave an overview of JPG's contribution encyclical by encyclical. Here is the overview, with my comments interspersed.

1. Laborem Exercens (1981): Here JPG presented a view of work that contrasts to the view of work as merely punishment for sin. For JPG, work is the expression of human creativity which participates in God's sustaining creative power. Interestingly, in today's world, some analysts are focusing on the new economy in which work is more about human creativity than about making durable goods.

2. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987): In this encyclical, JPG affirmed the right of economic initiative, a right linked to the theme of work as creativity.

3. Centesimus Annus (1991): This encyclical, written to mark the centenary of Leo XIII's landmark social encyclical Rerum Novarum, is, in Weigel's words, a "big leap." Weigel notes six great themes in this document:

a. A free and virtuous society consists of three interlocking parts: a democratic political community; a free economy; and a vigorous public moral culture. The key component that directs the rest is a vigorous public moral culture.

b. The Church's vision of the person and of society is necessary to hold democracy and the market to account. Democracy and the market are not "machines" that can run on their own without moral guidance.

c. Freedom is not willfulness. Genuine freedom is not about doing whatever you choose to will.

d. Voluntary, non-governmental associations represent the "subjectivity of society" and are essential components of a free society and, in fact, serve as schools of freedom.

e. In an insight now common among many other thinkers, JPG points out that wealth is not just natural resources or land but is primarily tied to entrepreneurial ideas, skills, creativity, and imagination.

f. JPG proposes a new way of thinking of the poor, namely, as persons with potential to be unleashed by including them in the networks where ideas, skills, and entrepreneurial instincts are learned. Weigel views this theme as a strong critique of welfare dependency.

4. Evangelium Vitae (1995): Opposition to abortion is an elementary principle of justice and is not primarily a religious argument. Democracy risks destruction if persons are reduced to categories of utility (as has been done, for example, in American culture in the realm of sexual mores). The life arising from human conception is a human person with a unique genetic identity who is thus entitled to equality before the law. The Church's opposition to abortion and euthanasia will not change. By the way, in the talk, Weigel also noted that the U.S. bishops in 1998 abandoned the "Seamless Garment" metaphor which treated issues like capital punishment as equal in weight to the issue of abortion. The abortion and the euthanasia issues are more fundamental than other issues.

Weigel also added his own view in the talk that there are three big ideas with "global traction" in the world today: 1.) Pragmatic Materialism and Utilitarianism (what reigns supreme today in American culture); 2.) Radical Islam (proposing coercion as an instrument of religious expansionism); and 3.) the Catholic Proposal, which views freedom as the freedom to choose what is true and good and which rejects coercion as a social instrument. The civilized proposal is the Catholic Proposal. It is also the proposal that will lead to human flourishing.

Partisans on all sides in society and the Catholic Church "need to lower the level of our anger," said Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., in a symposium on politics and faith held yesterday at Duquesne University.

McCarrick is a champion of the poor who has been vilified by some activists on the Catholic right for refusing to deny communion to Catholic legislators who support abortion rights.

The other keynoter was the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and writer who is one of the leading intellectuals on the religious right. Neuhaus was recently attacked in the New York Review of Books by liberal cultural commentator Garry Wills, who accused him of undue influence at the White House and the Vatican.

Though McCarrick and Neuhaus are often depicted on opposing sides of the Catholic culture wars, they were in agreement about the need for civil discourse and for religious voices to share in shaping public policy.

Source: Solve religious-political differences without hate, Catholic speakers say, by Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Sept. 20, 200 5.

Thank You, President Bush.

Genevieve Kineke (Feminine Genius) reminds us to thank our President:

For those who wonder about the good effects of a pro-life president, see the good news about the US refusing to fund the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) which supports China's mandatory abortion and sterilisation program. This is the fourth year in a row that the administration has made the same decision . . .

Genevieve directs our attention to a current article in the current issue of Time magazine on China's involvement in a brutal campaign of forced abortions and sterilizations.

LifeSiteNews has more on the story:

The White House has once again denied the controversial United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) financial backing – for the fourth year running, despite assurances from the UNFPA that it is not involved in coercive abortion in China. The UNFPA would normally receive $34 million; instead, $25 million will be redirected to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

US law prohibits the country from contributing to any organization that participates in coercive abortion – a practice widely acknowledged in Communist-ruled China. Despite alleging that they have no participation in this practice – as a press release from the UN dated today claims – other groups continue to document evidence that the UNFPA is directly involved in funding and aiding China’s coerced abortion program.

The United States refuses to fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) based on its U.S. Department of State investigations. Last December Arthur Dewey, the U.S. assistant secretary of State for the bureau of population, refugees, and migration made a presentation to the House International Relations Committee, stating that “UNFPA support of, and participation in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion, thus triggering the Kemp-Kasten prohibition on support to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” The result has been that the United States has not funded UNFPA during the past three years. . . .

The move earned the praise of Catholic congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ).

Readers might recall that President Bush's principled refusal to fund abortions was a source of conflict in the 2004 presidential race, with Senator Kerry promising to restore full funding to the U.N. program.

Potential ambassador to the Vatican says US, Rome share values

From the Catholic News Agency.

Senator Kennedy kills aid plan for parochial-school Katrina victims

From Catholic World News:

One of America's most prominent Catholic politicians has killed a proposal by President Bush [that] would have given families displaced by Hurricane Katrina financial aid to send their children to private or parochial schools, the Culture of Life Foundation reports.

A bipartisan student relief package put forth by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi did not include a provision that would have given students up to $7,500, because Senator Kennedy opposed the provision, according to a high-level Congressional staffer who spoke with Culture & Cosmos, an online newsletter from the Culture of Life Foundation.

Culture & Cosmos also reports that a prominent Church prelate said he was furious that aid to private schools had been kept out of the package and he was especially angry that it is being blocked by "four Irish Catholic Senators."

Judicial Activism

For those who need reminded of the judicial activism of our "robed masters" the following two articles from CNA will help:

Missouri judge blocks new anti-abortion laws

Bishop hopeful appeal will make partial-birth abortions illegal

The Right to Privacy

Robert P. George in the New York Times on the right to privacy:

What Blackmun never told us, and couldn't tell us, is why the due process clause - which on its face is concerned with procedural matters - should be interpreted in this sweeping way. On what constitutional basis can we say that abortion is protected by "due process" but a right to assisted suicide - unanimously rejected by the court in 1997 - is not? Why is sodomy protected and prostitution unprotected? Why does the right to privacy not extend to polygamy or the use of recreational drugs?

Clearly, it is not the Constitution that accounts for the outcomes in the court's "privacy" cases; it is simply the moral and political opinions of the justices. The nation will be fortunate if Judge Roberts understands that the result of the court's invention of a generalized right to privacy has been 40 years of unprincipled - and unpredictable - constitutional law.

Catholics and the Courts

This morning's piece from Manuel Miranda.

The JFK Question

I have been meaning to post on this. Instead I point our readers to Manuel Miranda's excellent piece on Opinion Journal today. Some excerpts:

While questioning John Roberts on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter asked: "Would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, and he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960: 'I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.' "

Hours later, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California made it worse: "In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion. . . . My question is: Do you?"

How insulting. How offensive. How invidiously ignorant to question someone like Judge Roberts with such apparent presumption and disdain for the religion he practices. The JFK question is not just the camel's nose of religious intolerance; it is the whole smelly camel.

...

The JFK question has no place in a Senate confirmation process. The Constitution says so. As I noted in an earlier column new secularist bigotry has found a home in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was not the first to say so. In July 2003, the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, reacted to the growing evidence of a religious test in the Senate: "Many people already believe that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic. Some things change, and some things don't. The bias against 'papism' is alive and well in America. It just has a different address."

A Catholic archbishop's voice in politics is a rare enough thing, but it was not alone. Representing more than 1,000 synagogues, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations wrote this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee a few days earlier: "As a community of religious believers committed to full engagement with modern American society, we are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs."

Now, two years later, the situation is worse. Anti-Semitism marred the confirmation battles of associate justices Abe Fortas, Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo, but it was unpronounced and hidden. John Roberts will be only the 11th Catholic (out of 109 justices) to serve on the Supreme Court in its 215-year history. But his confirmation may be a historic first. It marks the introduction, on the record, of a constitutionally prohibited religious test for a Supreme Court nominee. We are going in the wrong direction.

Catholic Social Justice Primer

For too long, Catholic liberals have been the ones to focus on the social teaching of the Church. The problem is that Catholic liberals have distorted that teaching much as they gravely distorted the moral theology of the Church. Theologian and author George Weigel is trying to correct the distortion of Catholic social teaching by presenting an accurate and updated summary that takes into account the decisive contributions of the late John Paul the Great.

Weigel set forth in a recent talk the four principles of Catholic social teaching; in parentheses, I will note the particular Pope most involved in first setting forth each principle. Here they are for your benefit:

1.) The Principle of Personalism or Human Rights (Leo XIII):
This principle is the most basic of the four and articulates the inalienable dignity and value of the human person made in the image and likeness of God. The dignity and honor of the human person, not the agenda of the state or of a particular race, gender, or tribe, is the basis of our social teaching.

2.) The Communitarian Principle (Leo XIII):
This principle, also called the Principle of the Common Good, states that our social structures must contribute to the general welfare of society. Of course, St. Thomas Aquinas also articulated this principle.

3.) The Principle of Subsidiarity (Pius XI):
Also explainable as the "Free Association" or "Civil Society" Principle, this principle, based on a rigorous distinction between the state and society, asserts that the state exists to serve society and not vice-versa. In general, decisions are best made at the lowest possible level of society by those persons closest to the problem to be addressed. Weigel gives American federalism as an example of this principle and notes that this anti-statist principle leads us to prefer, where possible, private or mixed private/public sector solutions as opposed to exclusively public sector solutions to social problems. School vouchers which empower parents as the primary educators of their children are a good example of such a preferred solution. Another application of this principle would be for courts to let the several states determine their own stand on the abortion issue or on the so-called "gay marriage" issue through democratic debate and legislation, instead of imposing a national regime from Washington.

4.) The Principle of Solidarity (John Paul the Great):
Weigel, the biographer of the late Pope, also calls this the Principle of Civic Friendship. This principle declares that the relations among persons in a particular society must go beyond mere legal or contractual relationships. There must be a personal bond in a society that goes beyond contracts and markets. This principle is especially relevant to a country like the United States where our cultural diversity all too often leads us to look to the pursuit of the dollar and to litigation as the glue that is supposed to hold us together.

There is certainly much more to say about Catholic social teaching. But getting an analytic overview is a good first step.

Revisiting the Issues of a "Pro-Choice Catholic" Presidency

[A minor diversion from the Roberts' hearings . . . ]

"I voted for Bush and all I got was this lousy Administration" Mitchell Hadley raises the question:

It's funny how the mind works sometimes. It can get you from point A to point F in the blink of an eye, without you even figuring out how you got past points B, C, D and E. I had one of those synapses on Saturday night after hearing about the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. It went something like this:

What kind of appointment will Bush make - will he hold fast, or give in to the moderates and liberals?
Will he pick a Thomas or Scalia, or will it be more like Souter or Kennedy?
I don't have the greatest confidence Bush to begin with.
After all, I didn't even vote for him the first time - I voted for Buchanan.
I did vote for Bush against Kerry, but only because a Kerry presidency would have been even worse for the country.
Not to mention the harm it would have done the Church. That was really my major consideration.
But of course, in November 2004 we didn't know Cardinal Ratzinger would be the new pope less than a year later.
Would that have changed anything?
And so, in the blink of an eye, we got from here to there and finally to my question, which is:

Would the election of Kerry, followed by the election of Benedict, have forced a showdown in the Catholic Church? Would we have seen Benedict deliver the ultimate in ultimatums to pro-abortion American Catholics? Would this have expedited the coming of the smaller but stronger Church that Cardinal Ratzinger often talked of? Would it, in short, have resulted in Benedict speaking with a force and moral authority which the American cardinals and bishops have so often failed to use?

Or would it have been a less visible, more subtle, under-the-radar battle that would have developed? And in the meantime would Kerry's pro-abortion stance, amplified by his pro-abort cohorts on both sides of the aisle, have caused great scandal and harm to the Church?

It's all 20/20 hindsight of course, but that's never stopped us pundits before. So that's why I'm sending this bleg to the Ratzinger expert, Christopher of the Ratzinger Fan Club, to get his opinion on this question. And feel free to chip in with opinions of your own, if you have them.

Last week Mitchell requested my thoughts on this question (sorry for the delay) -- I promised him that while hardly an "expert" on Ratzinger I would do my best, after which I'd turn over the discussion to my colleagues and readers, who as former bloggers of CatholicKerryWatch might be willing to indulge in some speculation of their own.

Sen. John Kerry stands with Kate Michelman (right) President of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Since 1995, Michelman's group has given Kerry a 100% rating for his voting record to defend abortion.

First, let's review for a moment the various challenges that a Kerry presidency would have made for orthodox Catholics in America:

• The perpetuation of the "communion scandal" -- as provoked by an obstinate and unrepentant "pro-choice Catholic" President profaning the Eucharist. While the media's attention to this issue would probably pass (just as it has subsided in the wake of the presidential election), I suspect it would have been continuously thrust before the public eye on repeated occasions, and would certainly put the priest (provided he was attentive to Ratzinger's general principles) in the uncomfortable position of withholding communion from a sitting President of the United States.
  

• The challenge to the Bishop's public witness -- As if the USCCB didn't have its hands full already playing damage control with the scandal of sexual abuse among the clergy, they would have to contend with the persistent challenge to their teaching authority on any number of subjects. Imagine if you will legislation coming before President Kerry on matters of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, or gay marriage -- the Bishops (individually, perhaps collectively) would make an attempt to present the authoritative Catholic teaching on these moral dilemmas, calling upon all Catholics to inform their consciences and submit themselves accordingly in obedience to the Church. If pressed to respond as a Catholic, President Kerry would probably claim exemption, resorting to the "Cuomo Defense" (CatholicKerryWatch July 5, 2004) or even assert his (in)famous appeal to Pope Pius XIII:

  "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

  It is a scandal enough to have a Catholic governor or Senator challenge their local bishop's moral authority -- one can only imagine a president thumbing his nose to the nation's Bishops and the expectations placed upon them by faithful Catholics to respond.
  

• The damage to the pro-life movement -- I have only here to site Hadley Arkes ("Bush's Second Chance First Things 152 April 2005: 13-19.):

  . . . even the most sober observers of the political scene recognized that a Kerry presidency would mark the end of any prospects for the pro-life cause in Congress or the courts. Some pro-life conservatives were on the threshold of concluding that the issue of abortion had been lost beyond retrieval, that the return of an administration unrelievedly pro-abortion would be a terminal event for the pro-life cause. For such an administration would show no inhibition in its willingness to solidify the right to abortion with every executive order, every appointment to the courts, and even in international conventions, where it would use the United Nations to endorse, at every turn, “reproductive rights.”

  I agree with Arke's assessment of what a Kerry Presidency would have done to the pro-life movement, and that this was probably one of the chief motivations behind the Catholic vote for Bush, despite their reservations or personal disagreements with other aspects of his policy: Better a "moderately pro-life" President than one who is so unabashedly willing to submit himself to the dictates of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Q: In light of the above, we can judge with certainty that a Kerry presidency would indeed have caused great scandal and harm to the American church, exacerbating the problems already present and brought before the public eye during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Given then-Cardinal Ratzinger's recommended guidelines to the U.S. bishops, I'm inclined to think that the persistent scandal of a Kerry presidency, or let's be honest, a presidency of any "pro-choice Catholic" (Republican or Democrat) -- would preclude a "subtle" or "under the radar" approach.

That said, even with the forceful wording of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles", I think that he would likely delegate the responsibility for responding to the president to the American Bishops rather than bypass or step over them. And as we have seen, arriving at a solution to this issue is far from easy. As much as we would all like an immmediate response, there is the matter of preserving the integrity of the bishop's moral witness by acting in a manner that is uniform and least susceptible to further scandal. One might very well applaud those courageous bishops who took a stand against the desecration of the Eucharist in their diocese. But there still remains the likely possibility of a "pro-choice" Catholic legislator being challenged and denied communion in one diocese, yet freely accepted and welcomed in another, with the inevitable result that the bishops are pitted against each other in a manner that further impedes the communication of the Church's teaching on this matter.

This is the subject of a recent article by Bishop Wuerl of Pittsburgh ("Episcopal Pastoral Decisions and Ecclesial Communion" Pittsburgh Catholic August 26, 2005), who in consideration of conciliar documents, the apostolic letters of JPII and canon law considers two options in which bishops might carry out this difficult decision, the first being "Formal Incorporation [of the ban of commmunion] into Conference Structure," the second the "Formalization of Collegial Consultation". My brother Jamie provides an excellent critique of Wuerl's proposals in three posts to Ad Limina Apostolorum:

(1) on the Nature of Episcopal Conferences;
2) Reflections on the Reform of the Episcopal Conferences;
and relevant to this specific issue,
3) Observations on Episcopal Pastoral Decisions and Ecclesial Communion

and given his knowledge and experience in this area, I'll defer to his analysis.

Q: Would this have expedited the coming of the smaller but stronger Church that Cardinal Ratzinger often talked of?

Inasmuch as a strong stance by the bishops on this matter might serve as "final straw" for some Catholics ("in name only"), yes -- those who value reception of commmunion over the proper disposition of their souls might seek out "greener pastures" with, say, the Episcopalians. . . . But it's hard to say, really -- the prospect of Cardinal Ratzinger being elected Bishop of Rome was often thought to be the "progressive" Catholic's worst nightmare, but I haven't witnessed them leaving the Church in droves.

I have to say, this was challenging and I thank Mitchell for the exercise, although I fear I might have let him down with my rather evasive answer. I will add that with 2008 not that far away, we might be revisiting these very issues with the prospect of another pro-choice Catholic candidate (Giuliani perhaps?). And with that, I hereby open the floor to my colleagues and our commentators.

Douglas Kmiec on "Catholic Judges, the U.S. Constitution and Natural Law"

Catholic Judges, the U.S. Constitution and Natural Law, August 29, 2005. Zenit interviews Douglas Kmiec, the Caruso Family chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University of Law and co-author of The American Constitutional Order: History, Cases and Philosophy (LexisNexis), on "the appropriateness of the U.S. bishops' involvement in the confirmation process, as well as the importance of the natural law tradition for prospective Supreme Court justices."

Kmiec discusses the proper responsibilities of a judge in fulfilling the call of his office as well as the rightful application of a Catholic moral perspective on those decisions. He also addresses Bishop Skylstad's July 2005 letter to President Bush, urging the President's consideration of “qualified jurists who, pre-eminently, support the protection of human life from conception to natural death, especially of those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill" -- a letter which as David notes is not without its deficiencies but which is nonetheless deemed by Kmiec a "direct and entirely appropriate expression of Catholic faith."

Kmiec closes with a shout-out to the Catholic blog Mirror of Justice for their rather lively "participatory discussion of constitutional development from the Catholic view." (I recommend them as well).

Schwarzenegger to veto same-sex marriage bill

The governor gets one right.

An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy

From George Weigel concerning next week's confirmation hearings:

Dear Senator Leahy:

Because you’re the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, your performance during the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts will tell the country a lot about the constitutional and moral priorities of the Democratic Party and the party’s sense of fair play.

As one Catholic to another, permit me to suggest that you also have an opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to insure that Catholic-bashing, overt or subtle, does not spill over into the Judiciary Committee’s deliberations from the activists’ battle-of-the-blogs and the food fights on cable TV.

Shortly after Judge Roberts’ nomination, President Bush was accused of “playing the Catholic card” in an opinion piece widely circulated in the blogosphere. “Playing the Catholic card” is, to be frank, either a vulgar appeal to ancient prejudices or code-language for “someone who can’t be trusted to take Planned Parenthood’s position on abortion.” In a news story chronicling Roberts’ work as deputy solicitor general, the Associated Press went out of its way to describe the nominee as a Catholic. Referring to Judge Roberts’ Catholicism in a news story in which that fact is wholly irrelevant is yet another example of barely disguised prejudice or warning-shot-by-code-language.

An overreaction? I think not. Consider what would have happened if, after nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, President Clinton had been accused of “playing the Jewish card”? Suppose the Associated Press had run a news story in these terms: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jew, once wrote an ACLU legal brief on the constitutional status of Roe v. Wade”? There would have been outrage, and it would have been wholly justified. American civil society simply will not permit public displays of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. In your work before and during the Roberts confirmation hearings, perhaps you could challenge America to rid itself of vestigial anti-Catholicism — which, as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., once observed, is the most deeply rooted prejudice in the history of the United States.

Permit me to raise another concern. In late July, you told a Vermont radio show that you wouldn’t vote to confirm a nominee who “didn’t consider Roe v. Wade settled law.” You then compared Roe to Brown v. Board of Education, the epic civil rights case that rejected “separate but equal” public education as unconstitutional. I suggest that you have the wrong analogy here. The correct analogy is between Roe and Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that created the “separate but equal” doctrine. Now there was “unsettled law;” there was a decision that cut across the grain of basic principles of justice; there was a decision that roiled our politics for generations, until Brown effectively reversed Plessy in 1954. Plessy, in a word, was the Roe of its time: a case wrongly-decided on a fundamental issue.

There is nothing “settled” about Roe v. Wade, which liberal constitutional scholars like Archibald Cox and Alexander Bickel deplored as judicial overreach in 1973. Roe ignited the most divisive debate in our national politics — just as Plessy eventually did. Because Roe got it so wrong on such a basic point of justice — does innocent human life deserve the protection of the law? — it has endlessly distorted other aspects of our law and our politics: again, just like Plessy did. Roe no more “settled” the abortion debate than Plessy settled the question of racial justice in America. To suggest otherwise ignores the evidence all around us.

One final thought: in these hearings, I trust that you (and Senators Biden, Durbin, and Kennedy) will not reinforce the Kerryesque canard that the Catholic opposition to abortion is a sectarian matter, analogous to Mormons trying to “impose” a ban on caffeinated beverages throughout the United States. The Catholic argument is not complicated: the product of conception is a genetically unique human being; that human being never will be anything other than a human being; as innocent human life, it is inviolable and deserves the protection of the law. That’s it. You don’t have to believe in seven sacraments or papal primacy to engage that argument.

Please remember that in the weeks ahead.

Will the president nominate another Catholic?

Here are the Catholics on the short-list:

Samuel Alito Jr

Age: 55

Education:
Princeton University, B.A, 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990. Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.

Professional Career:
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Law Clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977

---

Miguel Estrada

Age: 44

Education:
Columbia College, B.A, 1983
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1986

Federal Judicial Service:
None
**Nominated in 2000 by President George W. Bush to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Estrada
withdrew his nomination on September 4, 2003 after seven failed cloture votes.

Professional Career:
Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2000-present
Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1992-1997
Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 1987-88, 1989-90, 1992
Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sthrn District of New York, 1990-1992
Clerk, Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, 1988-1989
Clerk, Honorable Amalya L. Kearse, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1986-1987

---

Emilio Garza

Age: 58

Education:
University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1969
University of Notre Dame, M.A., 1970
University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1976

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 11, 1991. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1991, and received commission on May 30, 1991.

U. S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on February 2, 1988. Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988.

Professional Career:
Judge, 225th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 1987-1988
Private practice, San Antonio, Texas, 1976-1987
U.S. Marine Corps Captain, 1970-1973

---

Alberto Gonzales

Age: 49

Education:
United States Air Force Academy, 1975-1977
Rice University, B.A., 1979
Harvard Law School, 1982

Federal Judicial Service:
None.

Professional Career:
Attorney General of the United States, 2005 - present
White House Counsel to President George W. Bush, 2001-2005
Associate Justice, Texas Supreme Court, 1999-2001
Texas Secretary of State, 1997-1999
General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush, 1995-1996
Partner, Vincent & Elkins, Houston, TX 1982-1994
United States Air Force, 1973-1975

---

Edith Brown Clement

Born 1948 in Birmingham, AL

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991, to a seat vacated by Charles Schwartz, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1991, and received commission on November 25, 1991. Served as chief judge, 2001-2001. Service terminated on November 27, 2001, due to appointment to another judicial position.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on September 4, 2001, to a seat vacated by John M. Duhe, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on November 13, 2001, and received commission on November 26, 2001.

Education:
University of Alabama, B.A., 1969

Tulane Law School, J.D., 1972

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Herbert W. Christenberry, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 1973-1975
Private practice, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1975-1991

---

I also believe Judge Hinojosa is Catholic.

Ricardo H. Hinojosa

Age:55

Education:
University of Texas, Austin, B.A., 1972
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on April 12, 1983, to a seat vacated by Woodrow B. Seals; Confirmed by the Senate on May 4, 1983, and received commission on May 5, 1983.

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Texas Supreme Court, 1975-1976
Private practice, McAllen, Texas, 1976-1983
Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2003-present

Of Evacuations & Politics

As a native New Orleanian, I have continued to follow Louisiana politics closely over the past few years. So I recall things that many of my readers would really have no reason to be aware of or remember as non-Louisianians. I recall a recent U.S. Senate election in Louisiana in which incumbent Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu was running for re-election. The election was on a Saturday. By Saturday afternoon on election day, Sen. Landrieu noticed and became concerned that turnout in the heavily Democratic black neighborhoods of New Orleans appeared to be lagging. That was bad news for the Democratic Senator. So the political machine cranked up and voters were quickly and efficiently transported to the polls in the very same black neighborhoods that have now been devastated by the hurricane. When an election was at stake, plenty of poor black New Orleanians were aggressively picked up and taken to the polls.

Contrast that political aggressiveness in transporting voters with the utter and absolute failure of the same Democratic Senator and her friend the Democratic governor and the Democratic mayor of New Orleans to pick up these same poor people and get them out of New Orleans before the hurricane struck. I guess there is a direct relation between the threat of losing an election and the urgency displayed in transporting poor people. What a contrast. What we have seen on display during this catastrophe is the lesson that no one should entrust their future and the future of their children, much less their physical safety, to the unbroken tradition of political mediocrity that is entrenched in my native state and city.

The Real Hurricane Scandal

From the so-called "right wing" Drudge Report to the editorial pages of the liberal Detroit Free Press, it is becoming more and more obvious in the media that New Orleans was the city that did not evacuate in the face of a Category 5 hurricane aimed right at the city. Yes, my own family and many others did leave, some reluctantly and with delay. But cable television is recording non-stop the thousands and thousands that never left and never had a plan to leave. The mayor of the city, the governor of the state, and the rest of local officialdom utterly failed to go out to the acres of poor neighborhoods that make up most of New Orleans to get these people out BEFORE the hurricane hit. News reports indicate that even plenty of elderly and sick people in various senior homes and centers were not evacuated.

As a native New Orleanian, I know well that laissez-faire attitude--I could use stronger words for it that you can fill in-- which is so true to type. The culture of New Orleans is the opposite of what the New Testament is always urging: be vigilant, be sober, be on watch. The roguish attitude of the "City That Care Forgot" is no longer even remotely amusing or entertaining in the face of floating dead bodies, masses of poor people living like animals, and the elderly finally being fished out of old folks' homes. The scandalous ineptness and stupidity shown by local and state officials in failing to enforce and implement a true evacuation of the most vulnerable is, unfortunately, a continuation of the long history of misrule that has marked my native city for decades. Remember that fact when you see local and state officials lashing out at the federal response. Their lashing out is an attempt at distracting from their own obvious responsibility for a self-magnified disaster.

Update: The Census Bureau estimated the population of the City of New Orleans, as of 2003, to be 469,032 persons. The AP is reporting today that Texas Governor Perry says that Texas is already caring for more than 220,000 hurricane evacuees, with 10,000 more per day expected for the next three days (see AP story).

Now, do the math. I assume that the evacuees the Texas governor is referring to are people who were inside New Orleans during the hurricane. So add 220,000 already in Texas plus 30,000 more expected in the next three days and you get a total of 250,000 persons who stayed in New Orleans to endure the hurricane. Let's round off the 2003 population figure to 470,000. That means that about 53% of the population of New Orleans may have remained inside the city during the hurricane. Let's be conservative and put the figure at about 50%. At this point, with the information noted above, I estimate that as much as one half of the population of New Orleans did not leave before the hurricane. And remember to add to these numbers the untold numbers of dead in the city, who also obviously did not evacuate. [For further updates to this estimate, see this link.]

The State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans did not implement the mandatory evacuation ordered apparently only one day before the hurricane struck on Monday morning. Hundreds of the elderly and sick were left in their homes and in assisted care facilities. The large ghettoes of New Orleans were left chock full of people. Gov. Blanco, Mayor Nagin, and other local officials failed to do the single thing that would have prevented the massive loss of life: a real pre-hurricane evacuation of those who could or would not get out on their own. I am confident that this truth will emerge with greater and greater clarity as time passes. The anger should be aimed, not at Washington, but at the governor's mansion and at city hall. But you won't hear that from state and local politicians seeking to cover their backs and change the subject. And you won't hear it from Democrats intent on using this disaster as their latest anti-Bush ploy.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist...

...has died.

Eternal rest give unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.

The Hurricane Finger Pointers

The Bush haters are out in force again on the airwaves, as they were in the 2004 campaign. Now George W. Bush of Texas is supposedly the cause of the chaos in New Orleans. As a native New Orleanian who grew up through some memorable hurricanes, the accusation is utterly laughable. We grew up with the obvious precursors of the chaos we are seeing today on television.

When I was very young, I recall the highly destructive Hurricane Betsy which struck New Orleans on September 9, 1965--almost 40 years ago. Betsy was a Category 3 hurricane and caused heavy flooding in New Orleans--just take a look at this photo gallery provided by the government of St. Bernard Parish, a parish that has just been utterly devastated again by Katrina. I recall seeing my uncle in a rowboat in the lower 9th ward section of New Orleans, the same section of New Orleans that has suffered the worst effects of Hurricane Katrina. Then, in 1969, came Hurricane Camille. I remember Camille because I recall cutting myself while playing inside during the hurricane. Camille devastated the same Mississippi Gulf coast that Katrina has again destroyed. I also recall hearing older people talk about a terrible hurricane in the nineteen forties. What you are seeing on T.V. today in New Orleans was utterly predictable and is utterly unsurprising: a Category 5 and Category 4 Hurricane Katrina has simply magnified the destruction previously caused by Hurricanes Betsy and Camille.

In 1965, the year of Hurricane Betsy, George W. Bush was 19 years old. In 1965, Louisiana was in the grips of a long dominant Democratic Party. The White House was held by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Since 1965, everyone in New Orleans with any capacity for self-reflection knew that someday there would likely be a Katrina. Obviously, for 40 years, governor after governor, mayor after mayor, state legislature after state legislature failed to address the looming and known threat adequately, diligently, and persistently. This gross negligence is astonishing given that these same people lived through Betsy, Camille, and previous hurricanes and that these same people were risking themselves, their loved ones, and their livelihoods by taking no aggressive action to prevent the Katrina we all knew, all along, was likely to come someday.

In fact, the weekend before Katrina, I visited New Orleans for the first time in years. On the visit, I pointed out to a Michigan friend, who had come along for the visit, that the large lake to the north of the city, Lake Pontchartrain, was a looming threat to the entire city because a hurricane could push the lake waters over the levees and flood the entire city. I pointed out this fact, which is common knowledge in New Orleans, in a perfunctory manner never imagining that the very same scenario would be played out tragically one week later. My own mother had said for years that one day the city of New Orleans would be wiped out by water. It has come true.

And so on the weekend just before Katrina struck, the Louisiana authorities ordered a mandatory evacuation. As you can see on television, our Louisiana state and local officials did not follow up. Thousands of people are coming out of the woodwork, among whom many are elderly or sick or both. It is amazing that I read today on the internet that there were 80 elderly persons stranded in an old folks' home in New Orleans. Mandatory evacuation without implementation is a joke. On the day the evacuation was ordered, policemen and public employees manning school buses should have visited the old folks' homes, the hospitals, and the public housing developments to implement the mandatory evacuation.

My friends, there has always been, as far as I can remember, a very large, poverty-stricken, and extremely uneducated population in New Orleans. I bet that some who are being evacuated today were not even aware that a very dangerous hurricane was on the way. I bet some of those being evacuated today did not even have a clear grasp of the meaning of the word "evacuation" prior to the disaster. No level of ignorance would surprise me. So for local and state officials to call for mandatory evacuation without having police and public employees fan out across the poor neighborhoods and senior centers of New Orleans was an act of gross negligence now documented by the TV cameras.

The cause of the chaos you see today in New Orleans was 40 years of willful neglect by a long line of governors, mayors, and other public officials who knew better and who as Louisianians were intimately familiar with the threat and who had a lot to lose personally by not addressing the threat adequately. The Bush haters, once again, are living in an ideological fantasy world. Most reasonable New Orleanians know where the real fault lies.