6 Members of Supreme Court Attend Catholic Mass(Hear Cardinal Plea Rights of Unborn)

Source: The News Tribune

WASHINGTON --

An American cardinal on Sunday issued a plea for the rights of the unborn at a church service that included Vice President Joe Biden, six members of the Supreme Court and hundreds of members of the legal community.

Five of the six Roman Catholics on the high court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito - heard the homily by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo; the sixth, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not attend. Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish, was there as well.

Speaking at the annual Red Mass the day before the opening of the Supreme Court term, DiNardo said that people represented by lawyers are "more than clients. ... In some cases the clients are voiceless for they lack influence; in others they are literally voiceless, not yet with tongues and even without names, and require our most careful attention and radical support."

As DiNardo spoke, protesters opposed to abortion demonstrated in front of the church.

DiNardo did not elaborate on the rights of the unborn, focusing instead on how the complexity of the law can have a dehumanizing effect on those who practice it.

Increasing specialization within the law is "dizzying" and such formal knowledge "frequently becomes semi-mechanical, even distancing," DiNardo said at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle. "The law and lawyers are around because justice among human beings will always be an issue."

(snip)

Also attending Sunday's Mass were Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/apheadlines/politics/story/904431.html

...until I reached the age of reason. --George Carlin

My vote for the next Justice appointment: A black woman Unitarian.

Hekate

practitioner claims is doesn't factor in their decision.

B.Read Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.

I don't want the Justices of the Supreme Court to be all one of anything.

Roman Catholicism in and of itself is only another religion, but it is not the "religion of the US," and we have at least two of our Catholic Justices who are involved in Opus Dei, a very secretive and rather radical sect of the RC church. That's not right for our democracy.

Just as we need more women and people of color, we need more religious diversity. My "vote" -- the quotations marks were implied -- was somewhat humorously stated as being for someone who met all those criteria at once: A black woman Unitarian.

Hekate

1/2 of Catholics vote Democratic.


These guys were Catholic:

I'd say you're not exactly dealing with the Mormons. The Mormons have an 80/20 split leaning heavily towards the Republicans...but that 20% is their saving grace.

This jades agnostic ex-Catholic thinks that shitting on Catholics is a really stupid tactic.

Your body, your choice. You don't exist - cannot feel pain, have no ability to learn or feel emotions until you exit the womb.

How hard is that for people to understand and grasp?

Until you are seen (not seen by ultrasounds, I mean really seen in the flesh) you do not EXIST. You have no rights, no feelings, nothing and exist at the whim of someone else who gets to decide whether or not you become a human.

Do these people not understand that???

I keep hearing that (well, we suspend that when it comes to being able to choose where to drink and people being allowed to smoke - choice is only good when it comes to some things, other things we hate choice on)

It is her body, her choice. Doesn't mean it doesn't look or sound shitty. There is a time, IMO, when a fetus becomes more than that. I am not sure when I think that time is, however. I have a distinction though.

And WHEN does a fetus become more than that?

already been one. I just know when I feel uncomfortable if it is too late to abort, but I can't put an age on it.

For some people, having that baby could have not only produced a fine functional person, but also made at least the mother, if not also the father, better happier people.

There is substantial, genuine, thoughtful discussion of the competing rights of a mother and her unborn baby. Once the baby is viable outside the mother, there is NO serious support for the despicable statement you made. In addition, it is a pretty broadbrush statement that a baby, that we know can feel pain, does not have that ability the day before.

This type of statement helps the PRO-LIFE people paint the rest of us, who are pro-choice, but who do realize that abortion is ending, what might have become life. Your statement is intellectually dishonest.

Thanks for the heads up.

You are making some very wrong assumptions about basic medical science.

it's as simple as that.

recognizes the full personhood of males . . . !!

Just ask Dick Cheney, George Bush, Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Rove....think they give a rats ass who your mother is or was?

Hardly. Pick up a gun boy, spread your legs for a soldier girl, hang from a tree colored...its all about reality, not superficiality.

You don't exist - cannot feel pain, have no ability to learn or feel emotions until you exit the womb.
Unborn babies do learn, do feel pain, and apparently do feel emotions (their biochemical responses are very similar to those of adults in reaction to painful stimulus, including brain blood flow and oxygen changes, and hormones associated with stress or well-being, and unborn babies have been observed trying to ward away pain or pressure).

The difference is that their life is not an independent one; sometimes the woman carrying the baby is in trouble also. She also learns, feels pain and emotions.

If you are going to argue for abortion don't base it on a fallacy. Studies have confirmed that fetuses in the womb do release stress hormones when injected with a needle, do react to stimulus, etc. Here is a link discussing a Dutch study showing babies do learn and appear to remember:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm
another on pain:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2191.html
Here's a book:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Miraculous-World-of-Your-Unborn-Baby/Nikki-Bradford/e/9780809229284

Most women who have carried understand that their baby did react to things. One of my friends used to get kicked every time she played a particular album. Babies are listening to what is going on, and can recognize voices still in the womb:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030513080440.htm
Funny, because they were paying attention to both voices, but reacted with far more intensity to their mothers' voices.

Because of their experiences, when in-womb surgery is done the babies are anesthetized. When I was a kid, the belief was that even newborns were insensitive to pain. They used to operate on them with no anesthesia! Now we know better.

The downside to all this is that when a mother is stressed, in pain, in emotional turmoil and so forth the baby is not getting a very good start in life and the effects can last well after the baby is born (and can also apparently contribute to miscarriages).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-458916/Stress-mothers-affects-unborn-babies.html
another
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990310053349.htm

So, in fact, although unborn babies are certainly alive and aware, the reality is that a mother in acute stress is not providing the unborn baby the same developmental environment, which certainly has implications for mothers in difficult pregnancies who are facing a difficult decision.

can be dehumanizing too.

The Catholic Church has betrayed it's original position on Right to Life. Yes, I know, the church kind of sort of opposed the (ILLEGAL) Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, but, as far as I know, they NEVER mention, nor do they give weight to, the fact that War IS Social Abortion.

On edit: Changed "is" to "can be" to qualify the statement appropriately.

that war is sometimes justified. they correctly assessed that the iraq war is NOT

to some, other-than-late-term, healthy pregnancies.

and - As in War, the decision, in order to be a "moral" one, right or wrong, must be the individual's decision. Any interference in or handicap on such decisions obfuscates individual responsibility and, hence, development that leads to truth.

many in the pro-life camp, including most catholics. i DISAGREE, but i know way too many people who don't believe in abortion rights who believe it for the right reasons. iow, they are not anti-woman, but believe the right of the fetus to survive outweighs the right of the woman to abort it.

i PERSONALLY believe the opposite. that a woman's right to choose abortion (in the first trimester) should be "at will" and that the fetus has NO right to survive

We find life to be something sacred and good, unless it involves a fetus.

Voiceless, nameless, babies versus Iraqis. Are you willing to speak up for both? Or just one? And if just one, how are you any different than them?

They speak as absolutists, but act like relativists especially in re War and Capital Punishment. I am a relativist on both counts. I also recognize that FREE individuals must make these decisions and accept the consequences on themselves. Ignorance and dishonesty enslave us, so such decisions are usually not made by Free people and ARE often made directly or indirectly not by individuals at all, but rather by groups of one type or another.

Individuals make choices about where to smoke, whether or not to own guns, to eat meat, have abortions, have more than one kid, etc and so on.

So why does it seem so many on the left are not for choice for the individual? And then they say they are (abortion) on one issue, but they back track on other issues?

Either you are for freedom for individuals or you are not.

I hear some one the left wanting to limit how many kids a person can have, then others saying your body, your choice. If what you do in your life can in ANY way affect mine (in ways that I define) then I get the right (or a pass) to regulate your life or restrict your freedoms.

Either people believe in the mantra 'my body as an adult/my choice' or they don't - it is not something that relies on convenience to idealism.

Folks will rip my ass seven ways to Sunday because I back the rights of people to congregate at a bar and smoke, and they see it as though I only care because I smoke - but the CORE issue is, people can (imho anyway) and should have the freedom to CHOOSE whom they associate with and where they go.

It is not about smoking, abortion, etc and so on - it is about us believing that people are free to choose.

The idea that elements of a decision inher in the situation does not preclude the possibility of saying something like "The strength of x factors in y situations 99.999% justifies _________________."

Freedom is relative too, under W circumstances, X people have a Y probability of Z "freedom", so I disagree that "people are free to choose."

the right to make mistakes --

The number of abortions is always constant --

the question is will society protect women's lives or permit them to be abused

by illegal abortionists?


Further, in the case of late term abortions, they require approval - and are done

for reasons of health, including mental health.

And/or are you saying you want this right for a young girl to be able to abort her rapists's baby

to be taken away?

And what of the "pro-life" murderers . . . that doesn't bother you?

let's see, this "culture of life" (as an idiot in the local fishwrap said a couple of weeks ago) gave us the crusades, the witch burnings, the inquisition, the enslavement and slaughter of indigenous peoples in the new world--and deafening silence on the Holocaust.

As a matter of fact, after WWII the worldwide community called upon the Vatican to sign

A Confession of it's Guilt and Co-responsibility for the Jewish Holocaust in Germany --


A Thousand Years of spreading hatred for Jews --

Separating Jews from society, forcing them to wear yellow stars -- forcing them into

Jewish Ghettos - barring them from education, careers.

Now, I know the Pope did not turn into Michael Moore or a far left protester speaking of the Bush Crime Family, but these are strong words. It still surprises me that people here do not see that saying a war was not a last resort, not meeting the criteria of a just war, is not as strong as saying "no war for oil".

from Bush administration for their "faith-based" organizations???????????

Meanwhile, there's an investigation going on because they suspect that money may

have been used to settle lawsuits against the church/priest-pedophiles!!!

The numbers remain the same --

desperate women continue to chose to NOT go forward with pregnancies.

Women with problem pregnancies naturally chose to NOT go forward with pregnancies.

The reality is that illegal abortion does harm to women and their families -

and the church couldn't care less!!!

But necessary.

which is what underpins patriarchy, itself --

That's why the right wing had to raise money to push religion forward again --

The GOP actually gave start-up funds to the Christian Coalition --

i.e., the GOPs Christian Coalition --

Also, Scaife and others gave start up money to Dobson and Bauer organizations --

It's all a sham --

Including how US/CIA also put the Islamic Fundi movement in place --

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

See my journal, second article --

Let them go to their own church, if they must, and not be seen as politically supportive of any religion or church otherwise.

Really? Explain.

Should he have stayed home also?

He's not interpreting the first amendment. In fact, he's not really doing much of anything besides being a VP. Going to church is part of his job description in America. Going to church is not part of the job description for supreme court justices.

They need to maintain some distance between themselves and the issues upon which they must rule. They can't do that if they're too involved with any church.

As I said, if they want to go to their own church, to personally support it, that's fine. But this was a show of Supreme Court power, on display at a church.

No, you didn't say that. You said that SC justices should not be present at ANY church service. So they give up their First Amendment rights when they agree to don the black robes?

Just amazing. Authoritarians to right of me, authoritarians to the left.

"Let them go to their own church ...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6697834&mesg_id=6698154

If you want to glorify six justices attending a Catholic church service, you may, but I'm not looking for a theocracy.

Like in some underground chapel or safe house, but always in fear that they may be discovered by the authorities?

What's your deal?

I don't think six justices have any business at ANY church any time.

The Supreme Court is the head of one branch of our entire government. They determine the rights of citizens, most of whom are not Catholic, and many of whom are not Christian, and many of whom don't even believe in God. The justices have a duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. This latest event fails to meet that standard.

Exactly, besides your opionion, what laws are thems people violating.

My copy of the Constitution says nothing about any of our elected officials going or not going to church. If you don't think the Executive branch has anything to do with the first amendment you have a sad understanding of the Constitution. It is the job of all three branches to enforce and protect the Constitution. They take an oath to do that. Joe Biden took that oath and he can go to church as well as anyone in all three branches can go to church.

and going to this one?

It's very troubling that you fail to see the problem of the supreme court sending a super majority to a church service. You do know that they rule on the first amendment, do you not? You do know that they rule on such issues as "under God" and prayer in public places, do you not?

They have a duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and they failed that duty by this appearance.

First, you would permit SC justices to attend "their own church," the ones "they regularly attend," but then assert that attendance at a church service violates some duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Given that five of the six justices who attended the Red Mass are Roman Catholic (plus Justice Breyer, who is Jewish), what is the substantive difference, with respect to avoiding the appearance of impropriety, between them attending this service and any other mass celebrated at the church(es) (or temple) where they regularly attend?

(Edited to correct certain facts)

Do you know anything about the ethics judges are required to have?

Do you understand that the federal court system is littered with cases against the Catholic church?

The commentary to Canon 4 states that "complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise."

Your proscription against SC justices (and I would presume ANY judge) attending church services so as tp avoid appearance of conflict is unwise in principle and unworkable in practice.

Should a SC justice (or other judge) who watched "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" be barred from hearing cases involving Wal-Mart?

(Edited to fix misapplied word)

If and when you can be honest, get back to me. As long you continue to misrepresent my commments, I have no use for you.

because of the, in your view, appearance of impropriety.

These same justices may attend their own church(es) (or temples), presumably without such appearance of impropriety.

Have I misrepresented anything now?

If not, how is this consistent?

I cannot take seriously your statement that you simply cannot glean the difference between their right to attend their own church and their duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

The Catholic church is involved in more litigation than any other religion in America, and unlike many religions in America, there is a central authority for the religion, and a set hierarchy. It's like a really big corporation, but with no accountability.

The Catholic church is very active in suppression of constitutional and human rights. It spends a lot of money covering up crimes, beating down claimants, denying liability for misdeeds, and trying to assure that the next generation of Americans will include a healthy number of such bigoted persons who have loyalty to their church.

I wouldn't want six members of the court appearing at a private club or public event that discriminates against gays. I wouldn't want six members of the court attending a NAMBLA convention, either. It matters where they go, especially when they appear as a group, as they did at the Catholic service. It was an unseemly show of supreme court involvement with a religion that is heavily involved in all sorts of issues the court regularly addresses.

Because you said "Correct" to:

* You don't like six SC justices attending the annual Red Mass
* These same justices may attend their own church(es)

And in this post now, you are only talking about "The Catholic church" and its involvement in litigation, etc.

(You're talking to an atheist here, so I have no persuasion toward one religion or another, by the way.)

I even mentioned it could be a charity for widows and orphans. The Supreme Court has one job and one job only. They should not show up anywhere in a group to lend their tacit or actual support to any cause. In this instance, they endorsed the Catholic church, so I used them. They could have appeared at a company picnic of GM, or the ACLU, or any other group. It's especially egregious, however, given the Catholic church is embroiled in legal controversies that run into billions of dollars.

The Supreme Court rules on every kind of issue imaginable. That means they need to remain circumspect on everything. There is a huge difference between practicing one's religion and showing up as group to lend prestige to an event.

....about five Roman Catholics (six, if you count the VP) attending a Roman Catholic church service.

This was an effort on the part of someone to create the illusion that this church,

this priest has something worthy to say -- something worthy of SC Justices listening.

And, a VP ...

Together -- to make a showing.

Someone who has the ability to get 6 justices to a church, without so much as filling out a form to reveal the nature of their access to such officials.

We have some posters who think justices should meet a lower ethical standard than congress members. At least those guys have to disclose who is lobbying them to do what they do.

When six Justices show up anywhere in support of any event, it does not pass the smell test. Not even if it's a charitable event for widows and orphans. Their job is to stay unconnected to the litigants who appear before them, to remain unconnected to the issues they must rule upon.

And I think Biden was also there?

Consider that supposedly the Justices don't read any mail sent to them by the public!

But, they put their butts in pews easily enough to listen to organized patriarchal religion!

Anyone who doesn't get this is naive -- !!

Are they showing up at a Mosque any time soon?

A synagogue?

A UU church meeting with GLBT lessons discussed?


I can only imagine what it took to get six of them in those seats on that day at that time. Imagine the time, the emails, the texting, the phone calls, the relying upon well placed insiders who operate without any accountability or visibility. Why? So this church official can lobby 2/3 of the court regarding matters which regularly come before the court.

I think it's called a "Black Mass," or something, but I may be confusing this with another Mass that is specifically for the legal profession. (FWIW, the Mass was a part of a West Wing episode early in the series' run.)

Yes. But it's called Red mass, you were right about everything else. It dates back to 1245 in Paris, and 1928 in the US, they're held all over the world.

I think it's a little odd.

Too bad the good Cardinal can't get as exercised about a right to life post-birth, because that way he could spend some productive time fighting for single-payer healthcare, the most pro-life thing ever.

What a farce this church is -- !!!

smelling dirty panties in the wardrobe room closet.

Guess not --

Meanwhile, there's an investigation going on re the "faith-based" funds that

Catholic organization got . . . and suspicions that the money was used to pay

off lawsuits against pedophile priests/RCC.

!!!


Pretty convenient that that $$$$$$$$$$$$$4 came along, eh???

Nice of Bush -- !!!

And, Obama is continuing it!!!

Let's make our enemies richer -- !!!


:eyes:

can anyone itemize the cases where the supposed Catholic Justices have been voting with the Church, as you perceive it?

The Death Penalty? Mr. 'It's okay to execute the innocent as long as the law was correctly followed' Scalia?
Immigrants' rights?
The rights of the poor and the oppressed, who actually have been born?
The environment?

A number of these guys wouldn't know the Beatitudes if they bit them on their behinds.
Justice Breyer (who seems to like to go to Mass, at least the Red one, which may of course mean he's a commie) is likely a better Catholic than several of them.

Church. The Church does not support capital punishment.

Is the implication that Catholics are unable to do their jobs by the rules?

(And no, I'm not Catholic.)

to say --

and, in particularly, on abortion!

One of the last things the RCC would be thought of is giving moral leadership!

The John Carroll Society was founded in Washington, D.C. in 1951 as a spiritual and beneficent organization for Catholic professional laypersons in the service of the cardinal of the Archdiocese of Washington. The founders of the society were Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan, Judge Matthew Francis McGuire of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia , and attorney William E. Leahy.

Part of the John Carroll Society's mission is the financial and professional support of the Archdiocese Legal Network and Medical Network, which provides free legal and medical services to the indigent of the Greater Washington, DC area.

The current president is Martha Hogan (2007-2008), a medical doctor married to Judge Thomas Hogan, Chief Judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Jane Sullivan Roberts, wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, is a member of the Board of Directors. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola served as a President and is the Chair of the Social Action Committee which is active in assisting homeless and transitional families in the District of Columbia. Other prominent members include the current President of Georgetown University,and many partners of the private bar with most major large Washington, DC law firms.

The group was meant to mirror the Catholic Alumni Society of Boston. It is named for John Carroll, the first bishop then archbishop in the United States. The society sponsors the annual Red Mass, which is a Mass of the Holy Spirit to invoke a benediction upon the nation’s judiciary and lawgivers. This is celebrated on the Sunday before the first Monday in October, prior to the opening of the Supreme Court’s judicial year.



--- from Wikipedia

It's to ask the Holy Spirit to bless and guide those who work in or with the law.

Isn't that special?