The Alito Catholic trap and how to stay out of it

November 5, 2005

Guest Post by Morbo

If Samuel Alito is confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court, he will be the fifth Roman Catholic on that body. This seems to unnerve some progressives.

It shouldn’t. Alito’s religion is not relevant. What is relevant is his right-wing judicial philosophy. If Alito is to be opposed — and I hope he is quite vigorously — the opposition should be based on the fact that his judicial philosophy is extreme and out of step with the views of the American people. Getting hung up on where he goes to church only sidetracks the debate worth having, that of judicial philosophy. It also plays into the right by making progressives look like religious bigots.

Most fundamentalist Christian Protestants are political conservatives. Most Mormons are as well. I’m aware there are exceptions, but generally these religious views go hand in hand with conservative politics.

What does the fact that someone is Catholic tell you about their politics? These days very little. George W. Bush won a narrow majority of Catholic voters in 2004, but they went for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. It’s an evenly divided bloc with wide-ranging political views. The same church that opposes abortion in all circumstances also opposes the death penalty and advocates for the poor.

No doubt, the Catholic hierarchy is conservative on most social issues and often elevates its opposition to abortion above all other issues. But the people in the pews feel differently. Most American Catholics are pro-choice on abortion. Many endorse gay rights. Very few Catholics these days follow church rules on birth control.

William Brennan, a noted liberal on the Supreme Court and strong defender of church-state separation, women’s rights and minority rights, was a staunch Catholic who attended services weekly and took communion. Current Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is also a devout Catholic, yet he has refused to vote to strike down legal abortion and wrote the opinion overturning Colorado’s anti-gay state constitutional amendment. For this, he has incurred the wrath of the kook right.

My point is that it’s simple-minded to assume that a Catholic judge will be an ultraconservative because of his or her faith. I have no doubt that Alito is ultraconservative, even reactionary. That is due to his radical judicial philosophy, not his religious upbringing.

Some members of the religious right are salivating at the idea that progressives will attack Alito because of his religion. It’s a trap, and we must not walk into it. Alito deserves to be strongly opposed — because of how he rules from the bench, not how he worships in church.

Hear hear. This is not an issue. Progressives shouldn’t be talking about this (except to say it’s not an issue and we shouldn’t be talking about this).

  • I agree with everything you say about not attacking Alito because of his religion. I must say, however, that his religion could do with a lot more critical analysis by those interested in preserving the American way of life.

    When i was much younger, living in a very small, mostly Protestant town, I saw lots of anti-Catholic propaganda (leaflets showing the Pope pulling strings above the Capitol, e.g.). I was taught by my Catholic parents that such attacks were unfair. Later I watched/heard John Kennedy proclaim that he would never govern according to the dictates of his church, and the Catholic bishops backed him up on that (notably, Boston’s Cardinal Cushing). From its beginnings in America, the Roman Catholic Church – bigoted untruths aside, and perhaps out of fear – seemed to respect America’s traditional separation of State from Church.

    In recent years, now that Catholics in large numbers have moved “up” into the middle classes and “out” to suburbia, the Church of Rome has become extremely bossy about how the rest of us should live, not only presenting its position for consideration but actively directing the choices of US Catholic voters and politicians and backing up those directions with liturgical and theological threats. Denial of Communion or promise of excommunication means little to me anymore, but it should be a compelling threat to believing Catholics. If the bishops in America choose to make our way of life a captive of their theology, I see no reason why we should not discuss the plusses and minuses of having five out of nine Supreme Court justices being Roman Catholic. I see no reason why a Senator should not ask nominee Alito if he stands by Kennedy’s famous pledge.

    Why should the party of Thomas Jefferson give a damn about what makes the religious right salivate? I mean it’s not as though anyone were getting a blowjob or molesting an altar boy, is it?

  • Morbo, you say “No doubt, the Catholic hierarchy is conservative on most social issues and often elevates its opposition to abortion above all other issues. But the people in the pews feel differently. Most American Catholics are pro-choice on abortion. Many endorse gay rights. Very few Catholics these days follow church rules on birth control.” Those “Catholics” who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. rarely occupy pews. They call themselves Catholic because they were raised Catholic and continue to self-identify as Catholic. They are not, in any meaningful way, Catholic. Polls limited to practicing Catholics would produce different results. As for abortion, the Church raises that above all other issues because it is literally a life and death issue. As for right wing judicial philosophies, such do not involve imposing any view on anyone. They merely hold that under the consitution as presently written, the right to determine laws on gay marriage, abortion, etc., belong to the people of each state. To a right-wing jurist, the only way to change the constitution is through the amendment process. Short of that, the people of the states have the right to decide such issues for themselves. BTW, dumping Roe would not ban abortion. Abortion in a given state would not be banned unless the people in that state wanted it banned. No supporter of democracy can quibble with that. In my state of NJ, nothing would change. However, I could accept abortion to a greater degree if it is the will of my neighbors, rather than that of a few far-left justices who do not understand the limits of their authority. Thank you. All the Best.

    • Comments are closed.