Steele Yourself…
Yet again, the denizens of the Catholic blogosphere are discussing the most important topic facing the country and the world at the moment: the list of those to be cast from the communion rails. It’s been almost a year since Deal Hudson’s guys sent “spies” into the papal Mass to see which abortion-supporting politicians were receiving the Eucharist. And of course, the hissy-fits over Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have not stopped. In the latest round, the usual suspects are lecturing archbishop Donald Wuerl on how he must under no circumstances give communion to Kathleen Sibelius– of course, these bloggers are far more well-versed on moral theology and canon low than a lowly archbishop.
Well, I’m waiting for the inevitable onslaught against Michael Steele to begin. After all, Steele is a practicing Catholic who regular frequents churches of the archdiocese of Washington, including at episcopal liturgies. For Steele has come up with pretty much the exact position of the other public figures so derided by the communion warriors. Consider the following interview question:
“Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.”
That seems pretty cut and dry. I’m waiting…
It is the inconsistency that sums up my problem with the communion warriors. For it’s always been about the politics. If these people wanted to be consistent, consistent in their interpretation of Canon 915, then the net would would cast a little wider. As well as Michael Steele, it would catch John “nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent [Roe v. Wade]” Roberts. It would also catch those who supported the torture of the Bush administration, given that torture is listed among the intrinsically evil acts that can never be supported, regardless of circumstance. By this interpretation of canon law, it seems patently obvious that politicians and other public figures who have supported torture or advocated publicly on its behalf obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin, and ought to be denied Holy Communion. That could be a long list, and include many who pride themselves on their Catholic orthodoxy. It would encompass Justice Scalia, the National Review’s Kathryn Lopez, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, and Rick Santorum. You could probably count the Catholic Republican politicians who escape that net on one hand.
Let me be clear: I do not want to go there. Many who present themselves for communion each week should not do so, but this isn’t really the issue, is it? No, this is political. It is merely another front in what this group sees as a “war”, using tactics that are almost Marxist in tone. As Sam Tanenhaus described the modern American pseudo-conservative movement: “In place of the Marxist dialectic they formulated a Manichaean politics of good and evil, still with us today, and their strategy was to build a movement based on organizing cultural antagonisms.” As I noted in response, I think much of this relates to the very American culturally Calvinist and/or Gnostic religious traditions that paints the world in stark “us versus them” terms. This is the way the evangelical right views the world, but it is far removed from the Catholic mindset. Yes, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but what can I do? This much is pellucidly clear.
Comments are closed.
Steele seems to be all over the place on the abortion issue. He says that abortion is an individual choice, then says that by “individual choice” what he means is that the states should be able to decide. Some days he says he’s for overturning Roe, other days he sounds like he’s against it. One day he’s not sure whether he favors new restrictions on abortion, the next he says he supports them all. He compares embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust, but can be circumspect when it comes to abortion.
Here, btw, is what Steele is saying about the issue today:
As I noted in response, I think much of this relates to the very American culturally Calvinist and/or Gnostic religious traditions that paints the world in stark “us versus them” terms.
Casting the world in ‘us v. them’ terms, while decrying those who do so, is the definition of intellectual inconsistency.
it would catch John “nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent [Roe v. Wade]” Roberts.
This is entirely unfair. The statement was made in the confirmation hearings for his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which does not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Roberts made no such statements in his hearings to the Supreme Court, which are the only hearings that matter for this purpose. Furthermore his wife was GC of Feminists for Life.
Only an ignoramus (or a dishonest partisan) would take comments from his D.C. Circuit confirmation hearings and assume they represent his position on Roe v. Wade as a SCOTUS justice, where he will actually have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade, rather than just the obligation to apply it.
For Steele has come up with pretty much the exact position of the other public figures so derided by the communion warriors.
While his comments are obviously deplorable, in the same interview he says he supports overturning Roe v. Wade; that’s hardly the ‘exact position’ of Pelosi, Sebellius, etc.
Well the onslaught has begun. Of course Steele position is a tad confusing because he also says he believes in the Human Life amendment. However in that same interview that is quoted above he says he thinks this should go back to the States. Which in the end I think is what we all recognize is the needed course of action
To say the least unless we can find Judges that will take another look at the 14th amendment and reverse a particular bad set of cases from the 1800′s or somehow find a new breed of Natural Law viewpoint Judges (and how they would get confirmed is beyond me)the States and the debate there are the only option
I am urging caution among pro-life Catholic bloggers on a huge rush to judgement here. I think there has been at times a too much shoot first ask questions laters as to pro -lifer figures in the GOP when there is any report they are going into heresy. See the recent Palin controversy.
My position is getting to this to the states is crucial. That is one reason why a prospective nominee’s position on Human Life Amendment to the US Const never has much effect on me. Until we get to this to the States and have the long drawn out debates well there is no chance a Human Life amendments , in my estimation, will get passed.
As always I urge people to support (if you are in the GOP)pro-life GOP folks in the primaries. Needless to say for Dems the same applies
In practical terms I highly doubt that Steele will work to remove the pro-life platform from the GOP.
My main problem with Steele is not he seems to have a INTERVIEW problem and one just gets more confused what he actually means at the end of it
Is it not relevant to point out that Steele is not an elected government official, and unlike Biden, Pelosi, Durbin, Seblelius, Kennedy, Casey, etc., has no role in maintaining the current abortion legal regime?
Steele, for example, did not vote to overturn the Mexico City Policy.
As we’ve gone over many times before, John Roberts (in his D.C. Circuit confirmation) was merely trying to placate the Senate Democrats who had gone on the warpath as to whether Bush’s judicial nominees should be prevented from becoming judges because of their “personal views” (read: their Catholicism). It was a common theme: “Will someone of your strong personal views really be able to follow the Supreme Court, as you’re supposed to do? Probably not, therefore you can’t be a judge.”
And again, it’s quite odd that someone who purports to agree with the Church’s teachings here is critical of John Roberts, but not of the Senate Democrats who tried (and failed) to force a pro-choice concession out of him.
Paul: where in Canon 915 does it make a distinction between “elected government official” and others? As Burke himself says, the issue is favoring and promoting intrinsically evil acts.
John:
(1) I’ve noticed a tenedency around here to hold members of the judiciary to a far lower standard than members of the executive or legislature. Roberts made those comments to facilitate his approval. He was playing to his particular “electorate” in the same way that politicians play to theirs.
(2) I actually do not think Roberts should be penalized for this. I’m just drawing the logical conclusion from those who interpret canon law they way they do.
On on cue, the lawyers show up to defend their own… I love it that this is the one issue you people latch on to.
Yeah, because it’s a bogus complaint.
And note the key difference: Catholic judges like Roberts and Alito may have to speak rather precisely when they go like Daniel in front of the lions, but when they get on the Court, they vote pro-life (as Alito and Roberts have already done). So it’s completely bogus to compare them to Catholic legislators who promise to vote pro-choice and then do vote pro-choice.
Steele seems to be all over the place on the abortion issue. He says that abortion is an individual choice, then says that by “individual choice” what he means is that the states should be able to decide.
This seems right to me. It also highlights something that is often forgotten by pro-lifers (including me): We must remember to distinguish between those in the GOP who want abortion to be outlawed and those who merely disagree with the procedural legalization of abortion via the Supreme Court. It seems to me that Steele is in the latter camp. To really be pro-life according to the Catholics MM mentions above is to push for the outlawing of abortion. Many Republicans, like Steele, seem only to want abortion to remain a legislative and state issue rather than a judicial and federal issue. That, to me, is not necessarily even marginally pro-life.
Roberts made those comments to facilitate his approval. He was playing to his particular “electorate” in the same way that politicians play to theirs.
Right, and notice they do not bind him to upholding Roe if he is a Supreme Court Justice; they just bind him to applying Roe as an appeals court justice. Unless your goal is to purge the judiciary of Catholics, then he said what any Catholic justice would say. Certainly he said what I would have say in a similar circumstance. It is odd, given your support for his radically pro-abortion interlocutors, that you choose to pick on him rather than them in this exchange.
I actually do not think Roberts should be penalized for this. I’m just drawing the logical conclusion from those who interpret canon law they way they do.
The analogy is inapposite. Pelosi, Sebellius, etc. are quite vocal about their support for abortion rights, and promote such legislation. Roberts simply said he would enforce the law as it is written, not that he supported the law, or would pass such a law himself. A judge has a different role in our system than a legislator; they have different responsibilities and obligations. Granted, at some point, a system may be so corrupt that a judge cannot participate in law enforcement, but I don’t think we are there yet, and so I think Catholics can be judges in the U.S. even if that means they have to enforce laws that they believe are morally offensive.
On on cue, the lawyers show up to defend their own… I love it that this is the one issue you people latch on to
Feel free to attack justices that support abortion rights (e.g. Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, or Breyer). But there’s no reason to attack Roberts unless and until he does.
To really be pro-life according to the Catholics MM mentions above is to push for the outlawing of abortion.
But if Steele supports a Human Life Amendment, that wo9uld be “pro-life” according to your definition . . . indeed, it would hard to think of a more radical and sweeping ban on abortion than that.
Policratious
I am not sure the viewpoint of getting this to the States makes one in the camp of not even being marginally pro-life
This issue came up of course in the recent election whem Prof Kmiec said both McCain’s and Obama’s postions on Aborton were both “pro-choice” For a repudiation of that argument there was some excellent commentary at the America blog or Commonweal ( I am trying to find it now). Prog Garnet explored it here also
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTgxMDVhYmMxODBkMDlhZWE0ZGZmYzc0NDczMDQ1ODU=
The question I think becomes is the how we get the abortion question in the reach of Federal Power espcially through the courts. The “How” and what it is based on is of some importance.
Ahh here is the article I was looking for From the America blog
http://americaelection2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/different-take-on-kmiecs-book.html
Now make no mistake I would like to get abortion within the Federal power and I think there are ways to do it. At least where it can chipped away at and strangled. That is a very much Lincoln approach to Slavery where it was apparent that the Courts nor Lincoln by fiat could noy extinish that Inst. So yes Lincoln knew he had no power to abolish Slavery but he pretty much put the nail in the coffin through a clever use of his powers via the Emancipation Proclaimation
I very much want a Humn rights amendment but I think the only way we get there is after a couple of decades of argument in the states. If would win that battle is another story
Many Republicans, like Steele, seem only to want abortion to remain a legislative and state issue rather than a judicial and federal issue. That, to me, is not necessarily even marginally pro-life.
I agree that this position is not pro-life, but I am not sure practically how large this category is. Not to be cynical, but people’s positions on federalism issues tend to be vary from issue to issue. For instance, Brown v. Board of Education is pretty dramatic federal intervention, but not many people criticize it. Similarly, I’ve noticed that people’s views on abortion heavily influence their opinion on whether Roe should be overturned. That said, Steele deserves the criticism he is receiving from Catholics on the left and on the right.
Poli :
seem only to want abortion to remain a legislative and state issue rather than a judicial and federal issue. That, to me, is not necessarily even marginally pro-life.
If the judicial fiat of Roe were overturned, this would be a huge step in the direction of life, far bigger than the modest restrictions pushed by many Republicans and sadly very few Democrats (restrictions that tend to be immediately challenged under Roe) and certainly far bigger than arguments that “universal health care” or an abstraction about the “common good” through anti-”free market” economics would reduce the rate.
Why? Immediately, some states would implement serious restrictions, and our Catholic arguments would receive a much better hearing. Ross Douthat is right:
overturning this absolutist decision would remove the alienating impact of a legal regime that tries to read our Catholic views out of the political debate entirely.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/02/the_end_of_the_culture_war.php
In our current political climate, this is the most “pro-life” action one could have through the political process (it should go without saying that we must personally do our part for life in our homes and communities).
Overturning Roe would…remove the alienating impact of a legal regime that tries to read our views out of the political debate entirely
Nice to hear those words coming from the New York Time’s newest columnist:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/the_times_and_me.php
If MM wants to find a bunch of conservative Republican voters who are dismayed by Michael Steele’s statements on abortion, he need not look far. Free Republic–about as conservative as it gets–has several threads on the topic, and the general sentiment over there is one of dismay.
But I think the real issue here is the outcry of many much more moderate Catholic voters about the recent pro-abortion appointments and policy changes made by President Obama, whom MM reveres. Frankly, Vox Nova has done a horrible job of presenting and discussing the issues, but Mirror of Justice is doing a great job. Fr. Robert Araujo post on the topic yesterday is really excellent. It is what a post on Vox Nova ought to be.
John Henry,
Yes, that was very good news. Ross is one the brightest and most insightful writers around, and anyone interested in politics should get a copy of Grand New Party immediately.
Simply put, neither of the two (2) parties, Republican or Democrat are the party of “Pro-Life.” Since Roe v. Wade came into existence on Janaury 22nd of 1973 the US has had roughly twenty-three (23) years of the alleged “Pro-Life” party in charge, that being the Republicans, with NO overturnng of Roe v. Wade, let’s say that slowly, with NO overturning of Roe v. Wade. Blunty, the Republicans like to call themselves the “Pro-Life” party to get votes/elected. President Bush (senior) loved to say that he is “Pro-Life,” except in the case of rape, incest, or in the case of the mother’s health…this ISN’T “Pro-Life,” this IS “Pro-Choice,” and blatantly against church teachings.
The founding principle of all Catholic social teachings is the sanctity of human life. We (Catholics) believe in an inherent dignity of the human person starting from conception through natural death. We believe that human life must be valued infinitely above all else. Pope John Paul II wrote and spoke extensively on the topic of the inviolability of human life and dignity in the encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, (The Gospel of Life).
Lastly, in the NY Times there was an article from Peter Steinfels (8/29/08) addressing just this topic
I would encougae all to read as, prior to his death, my dear friend, priest, Jesuit, and retired theologian directed me to. It discusses when Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president, he was a constitutional scholar who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Kmiec is well known as an articulate opponent of abortion.
Kmiec states, “In my view, Obama and Biden seek to fulfill the call by Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” to “ensure proper support for families and motherhood.” It cannot possibly contravene Catholic doctrine to improve the respect for life by paying better attention to the social and economic conditions of women which correlate strongly with the number of abortions.”
Steele is such a mealy-mouthed politico that it’s difficult to tell what his position is on abortion. As I’ve already noted at my blog, I don’t think much of him:
http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/7018/comment-page-1#comment-360335
As for MM’s attacks on the Chief, they’re beyond ridiculous for all of the reasons noted supra. You’re a bright guy MM, but you sound foolish every time you drag out this pathetic line of attack against Roberts. It’s not a lawyer thing. It’s a common sense thing. They’re called inferior courts for a reason.
Many Republicans, like Steele, seem only to want abortion to remain a legislative and state issue rather than a judicial and federal issue. That, to me, is not necessarily even marginally pro-life.
Agreed.
I also, with MM, think Catholics should not be defending Roberts’ remarks in his appellate confirmation. I’ve written before that in my understanding, holding to a particular theory of government does not constitute a moral license to do evil. A judge is not morally licensed to commit evil in the name of upholding a particular theory of governance, separation of powers, judicial interpretation, or whatever.
The usual objection is that this de-facto rules out judgeships for faithful Catholics, since Democrats will never permit an honest Catholic judge to be confirmed. That would be a pretty bad consequence, of course, but just because refusing to do evil has a bad consequence that doesn’t mean that we have permission to do evil.
Zippy when is a Judge committing Evil
I mean a Judge under our system is working under a framwork. Perhaps Catholics cannot be Judges.
Can Scalia by RoyaklFiat declare Abortion Illegal? I mean should a
Pro-life” President declaee on his own that abortion is illegal and send Federal Marshals to close down the clinics
Can a Catholic head of the Marines see a grave evil in abortion and send his troops in to shut down abortion clinics, If he does not do it is he not “pro-life”
AGAIN WHAT IS THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY
Can Scalia by RoyaklFiat declare Abortion Illegal?
That isn’t really the question.
Roberts said that nothing in his personal beliefs would prevent him, as an appellate judge, from applying Roe. So if South Dakota passed a ban on abortions and Jane Floe challenged it in order to abort her child, Roberts would have no problem – nothing in his personal beliefs would prevent it, remember – striking down the law and authorizing, by his own hand, the abortion to proceed.
I’ve posted quite a lot on the subject at my own blog (in posts and in comments to posts). Judges dispose of particular cases: that is the nature of judging. They may or may not have the authority to remake the generally applicable law under a given political regime (through, say, stare decisis, judicial review, etc); and I’ve argued that our system might be reformed in such a way that when a judge disposes of a particular case that that would not translate into law which applies to other cases. In our system at present though judges are indeed also legislators through common law, stare decisis, and judicial review. We would probably be better off if they weren’t. That would require reforming our system of government to make a better ‘firewall’ between judging (disposing of particular cases) and legislating (writing the law which applies generally).
But no political theory can make it moral for a judge to authorize the particular murder of a particular person; that is, to uphold Roe as precedent applied to particular cases.
AGAIN WHAT IS THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY
It is not possible to grant legitimate authority to murder the innocent under any political theory. Political theories which attempt to do so are for that very reason invalid. So judges do not in fact have legitimate authority to enforce an unjust law or precedent (e.g. Roe) which itself authorizes the murder of the innocent. That doesn’t mean that they do have the authority to call out the Marines, etc. But in the particular cases they hear, nothing can make it legitimate for them to personally authorize the murder of any innocent or declare legitimate the murder of any innocent.
Legal positivists don’t like this, but them not liking it doesn’t make their legal theories true. No legal theory can justify doing evil.
Scalia is a legal positivist. Roberts may be. But that doesn’t mean either supports Roe or abortion more generally. Scalia has voted to overturn Roe; Roberts might if given the opportunity. Comparing them to Pelosi or Sebellius who support Roe and oppose legal restrictions on abortion is ridiculous.
Roe is not the ultimate moral issue. It’s just as wrong to say that (i) the “right” under Roe is just; and (ii) that Roe must be over-ruled on subsidiarity grounds but that women still have the “right” to choose abortions.
John Henry,
If Scalia believed the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment considered “person” only to apply to males, would be be bound to deny due process to women?
I am not sure I can convey exactly what I am thinking without writing something way too long, but isn’t Scalia saying something like, “I just interpret the constitution. It’s not my problem if the people who wrote it were wrong.”
Suppose a Catholic is a judge in a state that allows minors to have abortions without parental consent if a judge permits it. Suppose a minor who has been sexually abused by her father goes before a judge and the minor meets every legal requirement to obtain an abortion. Can the Catholic judge permit the abortion in good conscience by saying, “I am only performing my function as a judge to interpret the law”?
It seems to me almost anyone can formally or materially cooperate with abortion if they are allowed to say, “I am only following the law. This is not my personal choice.”
John Henry:
Scalia is a legal positivist. Roberts may be. But that doesn’t mean either supports Roe or abortion more generally. Scalia has voted to overturn Roe; Roberts might if given the opportunity. Comparing them to Pelosi or Sebellius who support Roe and oppose legal restrictions on abortion is ridiculous.
I agree with all of that. Roberts may well be a decent man, though that remains to be seen, since he is mostly an enigma and there are certainly some bad signs; and I need not point out that Republican enigmas in the Supreme Court have not turned out well so far. Scalia is an arrogant legal positivist and needs to be knocked down a few pegs, but that can be said about a lot of politicians and people generally. Pelosi and Sebelius are despicable human beings, vile servants of Moloch and peddlers of death with the blood of the innocent on their hands: their judgment is coming, kyrie eleision and may they repent before it is too late.
What I don’t agree with is Catholics defending Roberts’ indefensible remarks during his appellate confirmation. I also don’t agree with Catholics defending any jurist on legal-positivist grounds, since I think legal positivism is not merely false but flatly contradictory to the Faith.
I am not sure I can convey exactly what I am thinking without writing something way too long, but isn’t Scalia saying something like, “I just interpret the constitution. It’s not my problem if the people who wrote it were wrong.”
That is pretty much exactly what he is saying. He is saying that he is not responsible for the substance of his decisions, since he is like a positive law applying machine. Setting aside the fact that legal positivism is incoherent, it is never acceptable to do evil, and there is no exception granted under a rubric of ‘my judicial philosophy requires me to do evil’. If your judicial philosophy requires you to do evil, the only acceptable course of action is to abandon your judicial philosophy.
I am not sure I can convey exactly what I am thinking without writing something way too long, but isn’t Scalia saying something like, “I just interpret the constitution. It’s not my problem if the people who wrote it were wrong.”
David – I believe that is Scalia’s position, although he would probably agree that Catholics cannot in good conscience serve as judges under some legal regimes (e.g. the perennial early to mid-twentieth century examples). Legal positivism is morally problematic.
What I don’t agree with is Catholics defending Roberts’ indefensible remarks during his appellate confirmation. I also don’t agree with Catholics defending any jurist on legal-positivist grounds, since I think legal positivism is not merely false but flatly contradictory to the Faith.
Zippy – I agree (contra my suggestion above) that legal positivism is unacceptable in many situations. It’s basically the Pontius Pilate approach (I’m personally opposed, but…). MM seems to be suggesting, however, that legal positivism is indistinguishable from the pro-abortion advocacy of Pelosi or Sebellius, which I think is patently false. As far as I can tell, we are in agreement.
Here’s the more fundamental question: how can anyone rise to prominence in either Party without being a Freemason?
Even William F. Buckley was a member of “Skull and Bones”, and thereby anathema according to numerous Papal bulls and encyclicals.