Possible Supreme Court Nominees

Mon May 4 08:43:59 PDT 2009

I don't think the person was being labeled an anti-Catholic bigot, only the comment.  The fact that the view might be shared by many Catholics is not surprising, as some of the most notable anti-Catholic views are expressed by Catholics.  As was once said, some "join openly with our enemies, and do not hestitate to murmur against the God Whose sacrament they bear."  Remarkable how pertinent a 1600 year old comment can be. 
The entire exchange reminds me of the wisdom of the long-abandoned practice of sticking to constitutional law.Richard J. Dougherty
University of Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gilbert, Lauren" <lgilbert at stu.edu>
Sent 5/4/2009 7:39:15 AM
To: "David Wagner" <daviwag at regent.edu>, "Earl Maltz" <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>, "Robert Sheridan" <rs at robertsheridan.com>
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Possible Supreme Court NomineesI do not wish to engage in a debate about Catholic orthodoxy on this
listserve.  Frankly, I would lose, but more importantly, I don't think
it would be appropriate, given the First Amendment's concerns with
protecting the religious beliefs of all, not just those who subscribe to
the most orthodox view of a religion.  My only point was that it seemed
uncalled for to label someone an anti-Catholic bigot based on a
statement that reflects a concern shared by many practicing Catholics.
Lauren Gilbert
Associate Professor of Law
St. Thomas University School of Law
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wagner [mailto:daviwag at regent.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:07 PM
To: Gilbert, Lauren; Earl Maltz; Robert Sheridan
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Possible Supreme Court Nominees
We're getting dreadfully OT here (I mean off topic, not Old Testament),
but I cannot in conscience allow to go unchallenged the statement that
all baptized Catholics have an indefeasible right to receive Holy
Communion every time they attend Mass. As the Church has always taught,
and as the 1992 Catechism and the teachings of post- as well as
pre-Vatican II Popes have repeated, to take Holy Communion while in a
state of mortal sin is itself another mortal sin, namely, sacrilege.
The difficult questions regarding pro-abortion politicians arise as to
whether their pro-abortion (or pro-choice) advocacy, without more,
touches all three elements of mortal sin: grave matter (check), due
reflection (check, probably, most of the time), and sufficient
understanding (ah, now there you may have an issue in many cases).
Professor Gilbert and I are not the only Catholics on this list. I ask
for referees if necessary.
Oh and -- thank you, Prof Maltz.
David M. Wagner
Regent University School of Law
Virginia Beach, VA  23464
________________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Gilbert, Lauren
[lgilbert at stu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:05 PM
To: Earl Maltz; Robert Sheridan
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Possible Supreme Court Nominees
I am a Catholic teaching at a Catholic institution, and frankly, I am
far more troubled by Professor Maltz' attempt to silence speech as
"anti-Catholic bigotry" than I am by Professor Sheridan's somewhat
flippant remarks implicitly criticizing some Church officials' use of
communion to silence dissent.  Many practicing Catholics find this trend
troubling, both from the religious standpoint of church doctrine and
from the constitutional standpoint of separation of church and state.
For Catholics, the taking of communion is the ultimate means by which
the individual achieves unity with God and with the community of the
church.  From a religious standpoint, (to put this in the language of
constitutional analysis) there is a fundamental right to the Eucharist
under Canon Law to persons who have been baptized that can only be
denied to persons who violate that law.  Just as with secular law, there
must be due process, such as ex-communication,  before a person's right
can be violated.  Denying the Eucharist to politicians who advocate for
a woman's right to an abortion or to Catholics who support those
politicians violates their due process rights.    From a constitutional
standpoint, church doctrine aside, it's similarly troubling that many
church officials have inserted themselves into these political debates,
using communion as a tool of power and control against the faithful, in
light of Establishment Clause concerns and also, their tax-exempt
status.  I think it is legitimate, in light of the Church's progressive
position on so many social justice issues,  for Catholics and
non-Catholics to question those church officials who would use one
single issue to influence the outcome of the political process.  To
label such persons anti-Catholic bigots would seem to have the purpose
and effect of chilling debate on an important social issue.
Lauren Gilbert
Associate Professor of Law
St. Thomas University School of Law
________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Earl Maltz
Sent: Sun 5/3/2009 11:48 AM
To: Robert Sheridan
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Possible Supreme Court Nominees
"A comment on a public, expressive, condemnatory act or gesture
committed by one or more representatives of a faith, especially
authoritative representatives, concerning a public (or private)
figure as part of the national debate over abortion policy, is not
necessarliy a group condemnation of either the faith or its adherents
as a whole."
The comment to which I objected is was not directed to any specific
policy of the Catholic Church, but rather the general assertion
that  any person who was denied communion can't be all bad--an
implicit condemnation of Catholic doctrine generally.
"I wonder how a nonmember of a religious group, in the name of
supposed concern for the religious sensibility of members, has
standing to object to comment on such acts simply because the comment
might hurt some anonymous nonacting person's feelings somewhere out
in the vague nebulosity of the world."
I assume that in the future Professor Sheridan will refrain from
criticizing overtly racist comments from others, either publicly or
privately.
I have no desire to continue this unpleasant exchange any further,
other than to note that the fact that Professor Sheridan would a)
publicly make his  original comment and b) would later defend the
comment and attack me for calling him on it demonstrates that
anti-Catholic bigotry does in fact remain fashionable among the
chattering classes.
At 07:24 AM 5/3/2009, Robert Sheridan wrote:
>For the record, a comment on a public, expressive, condemnatory act
>or gesture committed by one or more representatives of a faith,
>especially authoritative representatives, concerning a public (or
>private) figure as part of the national debate over abortion policy,
>is not necessarliy a group condemnation of either the faith or its
>adherents as a whole.
>Don't we comment loud and long, for example, on Muslim religious
>leaders who purport to issue fatal fatwas on authors or cartoonists
>whose work runs counter to notions they hold dear?  Or Islamic
>fundamentalists, the Taliban in Afghanistan for example, who throw
>acid on the faces of women seeking to attend school, or men and
>women in Iraq recruited to strap suicide belts on themselves to blow
>up innocent bystanders, in some part in the name of faith mixed with
>politics and protest?  Don't we note and comment with critical
>interest when a group ostracizes, shuns, or imposes disfellowship on
>an allegedly straying member?  Various groups in the U.S. come to
>mind.  In the American Jewish culture there's a reason that
>orthodox, conservative and reform movements exist, each apparently
>believing that the others have got something quite wrong.  I wonder
>how a nonmember of a religious group, in the name of supposed
>concern for the religious sensibility of members, has standing to
>object to comment on such acts simply because the comment might hurt
>some anonymous nonacting person's feelings somewhere out in the
>vague nebulosity of the world.  It seems to me that the perpetrators of
>expressive, condemnatory, religious acts sincerely desire the world
>to take note of and to discuss their public acts, otherwise they
>wouldn't have deliberately commited them in the first place.  If the
>resulting comment is not always all that they might have wished for,
>then that's a bit of tough darts, isn't it.
>rs
>
>
>
>Earl Maltz wrote:
>>I am not a Catholic, but this comment is stunningly inappropriate.
>>Imagine the outrage if anyone on this list had made a similar
>>comment about the Jewish or Muslim faith.
>>
>>At 05:45 PM 5/2/2009, Robert Sheridan wrote:
>>>a comment on a public, expressive, condemnatory act or gesture
>>>committed by one or more representatives of a faith, especially
>>>authoritative representatives, concerning a public (or private)
>>>figure as part of the national debate over abortion policy, is not
>>>necessarliy a group condemnation of either the faith or its
>>>adherents as a whole.  ..
>>>
>>>rs
>>>sfls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Rick Duncan wrote:
>>>>Doug Kmiec paid a heavy price for a very public endorsement of
>>>>Candidate Obama last year. He has even been denied Communion a time
or two.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if he is on the list, as someone Obama owes.
>>>>
>>>>Rick Duncan
>>>>Welpton Professor of Law
>>>>University of Nebraska College of Law
>>>>Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>>
>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
>>>>viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
>>>>messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and
>>>>list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to
others.
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>
>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>>>as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
>>>that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
>>>members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090504/79cdd576/attachment.htm>