Catholics respond to landmark Supreme Court ruling
- Nick Mayrand Jun 18, 2020
A
person runs with a gay pride flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court
building in Washington June 15, 2020. In a 6-3 vote that same day, the
Supreme Court said LGBT people are protected from job discrimination by
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Tom Brenner/ Reuters via
CNS)
Crux has a fair and balanced article on the Supreme Court's decision and how it will or won't affect the Catholic Church and her hiring practices. It seems both sides, the liberal and conservative cabals each have their own perspective and ideology. You can read the article here.
As a priest who can hire and fire in the parish and when I has schools, we have a "morals" clause associated with all who are hired, be they Catholic or Protestant or non believer (depending on the job).
We ask Catholics to abide by the Church's teachings on human sexuality and marriage.
Thus if a heterosexual Catholic divorces and marries outside of the Church, this would lead to their termination. The same with a homosexual Catholic who marries in a civil law understanding of marriage.
Has that changed?
And if I know that a unmarried person who is applying for the job is actively engaged in sexual relations, can I discriminate and not hire them solely on that?
67 comments:
One of the unappealing ways we Catholics often talk about these court decisions or laws is when we say, oh well, it won't hurt us so badly, so...
For the moment, let's set aside whether Catholic or other religious organizations can or will escape this new madness. How will this ruling effect everyone else?
What so many people get wrong is to think of the objections to this sort of thing as essentially religious. Oh, there is a religious connection, but in the main, this is not about religion. It's about reality.
What Justice Gorsuch (our supposed friend) does is adopt and impose (without a word) a new anthropology. He simply takes this as a given, inasmuch as it permeates everywhere. This anthropology holds a lot of wrong ideas, including:
- That humanity is not really one race, sorted into male and female. Instead, there are uncharted categories: female-oriented males, male-oriented males, male-oriented females, female-oriented females, and many more yet to be identified. This is the logic of treating sexual attraction as an "identity." It is, in its own way, as oppressive as the old race laws that said, oh, you are black; you are mulatto; you are octaroon, and you can do this but not that.
- It is offensive to speak of the body and its parts having discernible purposes or "ends." Notice: this is a kind of new blasphemy law, that forbids an area of scientific endeavor; exactly like what the pope was accused of doing to Galileo: no, you aren't allowed even to look!.
- Hard, objective facts like biology are subordinate to the will. My body says I am male, but my will, under the influence of whatever is going on in my mind and emotional experience, says otherwise. It is no longer a question of, may I subordinate my body to my will; it is a matter of everyone must agree with me doing so. What you see (of my body), you must not speak of; you must accept my account of reality, over your own.
Now, it is quite true that these assertions contradict Christianity, but before that, they contradict reason; and there is nothing scientific about them. Why should our laws be grounded in these ideas? Justice Gorsuch does not say.
Why shouldn't we treat this as a religious issue? For two reasons. First, as I alluded to, we are consigning everyone else to madness, running away to take our special protection. Not a good look. And, second, because that plays into the enemy's hands. The other side very much wants to stigmatize what yesterday was objective fact and plain reason, as merely a religious belief. Why should we agree with them, when it is not actually true.
The Bible clearly teaches that the sun, moon and stars exist -- but does that make astronomy merely a species of religious teaching? If some lunatic comes along who says, oh no, those stars aren't actually there; they are just "social constructs" -- are we going to object to this merely on religious grounds? No, we object because this is insanity.
There are many, many ways Gorsuch's ruling -- if its thinking percolates through lots of other laws and courts -- will create mischief.
For one, I can readily see that eventually, schools and places of business will have to re-construct their public lavatories and locker facilities to allow for individual privacy, as it will be illegal sex discrimination to make any distinction between a "biological" boy and a self-willed, "transgender" boy. Homeschooling becomes even more important, although lots of people will not want to take the trouble (and I'm sure it IS trouble and hard work). If businesses seek to impose any sort of dress code, it will end up being boring pants and shirt, same for male and female, because this very case deemed it illegal discrimination for an employer to expect a man to dress in any particular masculine, versus feminine, manner. So everyone dresses like Best Buy associates.
But, yes, we religious people may be left alone -- for awhile.
Well, personally I think a bearded man with unshaven legs who wishes to wear a cute little cocktail frock should certainly be able to do so....and also believe nobody should have any reprogramming done negating any tendency to do wrong, by whatever norms at the time a society judges as wrong...I believe in freedom.
I also believe people should have the freedom to not associate with, serve, or employ any person for any reason which they see fit for any reason, and this includes people who refuse to associate with, serve, or employ anyone who is NOT a bearded man with unshaven legs wearing a cute little cocktail frock, and even exclude him if it blue, rather than desired red...I believe in freedom. They will have few friends, few employees, and little business, but, that is their choice.
I feel that way no matter what classification....whether male/female, Catholic, blue/brown/green eyes, of whatever appearance, race, creed, manner of dress or mannerism, and anyone free to live where not shunned if they do not like it where they are at the time.
If I go to an Hispanic part of town, and a restaurant will not allow my Euro heritage self in the door, they should be free to so do. Again, the restaurants who wish more business may feel differently, their choice.
This enforced homogenaity is utterly paradoxical, as it will always contradict itself with the pro-homogenous vs the anti-homogenous at minimum, and haters hating haters, and will collapse in froth-mouthed flames as a mind cannot hold as true two contradictory ideas, which is where western cultures are at in this point in time. Utterly psychotic.
There should be laws forbidding physical violence, laws guaranteeing freedom of movement, and etc, for protection of individuals in their persuit of life, liberty, and happiness, generally with others, but, also alone, if desired...I believe in freedom..
Including that of choosing eternal damnation or eternal bliss, with no sword to neck or gun to head regarding to whichever I stretch forth my hand....but we all should, and must, primarily tend our own garden, with most laws only to make sure each garden stays safe to bring forth whatever its tenant desires, be that weed or seed.
Currently, we live in a dictatorship, where freedom illusory and choices exceptionally limited, but that will always be so among those who fixate primarily on the always passing away world ....but even here, we still have that one inviolable choice available, and the only one which matters, to live in the presence of God with all our loving strength here and into the hereafter, or to live in our bitter selfishness here and into the hereafter. THAT is a garden which can never be taken away, but only attempts made at hiding it from view.
"This is the logic of treating sexual attraction as an 'identity'..."
How true!
There was once an anthropology that was ascribed to by many that held that:
- Men were superior to women
- Whites were superior to blacks
- Aristocrats were suited to ruling
- Non-aristocrats were suited to being ruled
Adherents to these anthropological "realities" supported their positions by references to scriptures and religion, to biology, to ethnicity, to geographic origins, to nutrition sources, cranium size, etc.
Humans are not simply biological creatures; we are not simply a collection of parts whose use is determined by morphology. The mind/body interface is, we have learned over the centuries, far more complex and far less settled than was once thought.
It is messy - very messy - and uncomfortable to come to terms with what we did not even recognize in the past. Entirely new, we will stumble and fumble for a while.
With grace, we will do a good job.
Anonymous at 3:21 --
So, is your point that you're fine with someone smuggling in ideology as pseudo-science, as long as you agree with it? Otherwise, I don't see how your point in any way refutes mine. Rather, it confirms the danger. You made the very point I wanted to make, but chose not to, for reasons of length. We've had such pseudo-science imported into law before, in defense of race superiority. So folks who like seeing their ideology winning do well to sober up; they may not always be on the winning side.
And that's a nice straw man you crafted, by the way: who, exactly, claims "humans are...simply biological"? Please name names.
My point is that you suggest a "new anthropology" is wrong because it is new, because it does not jibe with the anthropology you adhere to, because it makes things very messy - it "will create mischief..." when you and others desire clarity.
My basis for this statement: "What Justice Gorsuch (our supposed friend) does is adopt and impose (without a word) a new anthropology."
When you write, "...our supposed friend..." it speaks volumes, as does your remark, "...So, is your point that you're fine with someone smuggling in ideology as pseudo-science,..."
"...who, exactly, claims "humans are...simply biological"?
You do, in terms of human sexual orientation.
My basis: "It is offensive to speak of the body and its parts having discernible purposes or "ends." Our sexual orientation is, you seem to be saying, 100% determined by the parts we have.
Whether it is in some of UK Priest's comments, or in comments by anon above, am I the only one who has detected a number of clerical errors?
AJP.
AJP - I haven’t commented on this thread yet but please tell us, what are these supposed “clerical errors”?
Fr Fox
Thank you for your excellent article. I notice that 'Anonymous' has seen fit to weigh in against you, which is a sure indication that you speak the truth. You were too kind when you suggested he is crafting a 'straw man'. What he actually does is make you say something you didn't, and attribute ideas and motives to you based on his own twisted logic. He is certainly clutching at straws.
So to speak of the body and its parts as having discernible purposes or ends is to say that humans are simply biological. This is a palpably absurd inference. But he goes further. Such a statement implies that sexual orientation is 100% determined by the parts we have. If this were true, then logically homosexual attraction cannot exist, yet we know it does.
Note the weaselly 'it speaks volumes' and 'you seem to be saying'.
'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools...'
Whether 'Anonymous' is a knave or a fool or both is purely a matter of opinion. To some out there he could be a veritable fount of wisdom. As they say in Yorkshire 'There's nowt so queer as folk'.
"Clerical errors" is at times too generous a description, over the past month or so I have noted an increase in infernal errors made by 2 or 3 individuals who are now contributing to this blog.
UK Seminarian here again,
I can recommend the text "From Inquisition to Freedom" by the environmental activist and ex-priest Paul Collins. Chapter 3 has a wonderful dialogue between Paul and the great moral theologian Fr Charles Curran. This really opened my eyes!
From this chapter I learned the following:
Fr Curran rightly criticised the PHYSICALISM in most papal teaching on sexual morality! We must not simply identity the moral act with the physical structure of the act. Outside the area of sexuality, Catholic teaching does not identify the human moral act with the physical structure of the act. Killing is a physical act, but not all killing is wrong. It is murder that is morally wrong. One MUST distinguish between physical or non-moral evil and truly moral evil.
Thanks to this and other equally brilliant insights in this wonderful book I now have a more nuanced understanding of sterilization, IVF, homosexuality and even abortion!
Readers of this blog will be pleased to know I passed my first exam in moral theology at X UK Seminary with high distinction.
I look forward to long career serving the Church; in part by enlightening many lay people and Catholic students with my masterful grasp of the central principles of (up to date) Catholic moral theology!
If there is a flaw in Fr Fox’ argument it is labeling the Supreme Court’s anthropology as new. People have struck out in this same direction many times but failed because of the real science and and not the erroneous logic they apply to reach the desired outcome. Perhaps Justice Gorsuch is influenced by the German theologians and not seeing adequate support among the US bishops decided to set the conditions for them to come out in favor of their not new theology. The first error of amateur science and the heart of the error of the ruling is that if you don’t understand something then it isn’t true. The corollary to that is that you can make up your own version of truth to suit yourself.
To the creator of UKSeminarian,
I laughed a little at the ending of reading your comments then I felt quite sad reflecting how in real life, a real "Father" Curran influenced large numbers of real seminarians, who became real "Catholic" priests, and large numbers of real life theology students who went on to teach young Catholic students.
To UKPriest, regarding "clerical errors" I suggest you just enjoy the pun; especially as John Nolan seems in fine form today.
Gerard S.
Anonymous:
If you and I were back in high school, and we were taking part in debate, you would lose, because what you cite as evidence doesn't support your claim. You assert that because I point to the reality of the body, I deny the soul. That is rather like saying, when I point to the sky, I deny there is an earth beneath us.
I also accuse you of a remarkable uncharity -- or else you are guilty of a remarkable ignorance. You do know I am a Catholic, right? A Catholic priest, in fact? And you do know that Catholics are not materialists? So in effect, then, you accused me of heresy just now. Either that, or you think I am very stupid. That is not very nice at all.
But I do thank you for conceding that Justice Gorsuch did, indeed, incorporate a new anthropology into the law, via his opinion; and implicitly, you indicate that you approve, which simply confirms what I said at the outset: you're fine with it, as long as it concurs with your views.
It does baffle me why anyone thinks it is such a good idea to let five or six -- or even nine -- people who are not elected, and can serve till their hearts stop -- have such vast power. The people on the Supreme Court are certainly "privileged" if that means anything; they are far from representative. Yet so many people applaud when these elites give them what they want, without bothering to notice the sweeping power they claim in doing so.
You do realize that a government that freely pushes other people around -- who you don't like -- can just as easily push you around? And when that happens (I hope it doesn't), and you come looking for people to help you, I promise I will be sympathetic; but you do realize that many of the people you were content to see pushed around -- because they were the wrong people -- will laugh in your face?
Anon 7.07,
Were you inspired here at all by "Susan of the Parish Council"? I note here similarities in style and content.
On something serious though, for some reason after reading Fr Allen's 2 recent posts I thought of studies/research/surveys that indicate 30% to 50% of Catholic priests in our era have a homosexual orientation.
Even if 15% to 25% is more accurate, how did this come about?
UK Priest,
I am one of the simple faithful who completed a BA in history in 1982. And it is only now in retirement I am half way through an online course in Catholic theology. Perhaps without any "clerical error" you could briefly suggest 1 or 2 points for me as I prepare to write an essay on why the Catholic Church has taught that certain acts (like abortion, homosexual acts and euthanasia) are intrinsically evil, ie morally wrong and evil by their very nature; and varying circumstances can never make such acts morally acceptable?
Please, please, please recognize irony when you see it. 'UK seminarian' at 7:07 is a supreme example of it. If it works in ordinary writing, why doesn't it work on the internet?
John Nolan,
Sorry this is a bit off topic but did you hear on the secular news today that the world famous Wiggles have been condemned for "lack of diversity"? Ie- there may have been one Asian Wiggle and one female Wiggle but there has never been a black Wiggle or non binary, gender fluid Wiggle etc?
And being a UK citizen and I assume familiar with the English pudding The Spotted Dick, do you think a person on BBC world-service radio today could have been serious to describe this pudding as "phallo centric" and thus claim The Spotted Dick had played its part in the maintaining of an oppressive patriarchy in the UK?
I thought: No! This has to be a joke!? Parody or satire?
But after Fawlty Towers and John Cleese and Coco Pops etc have seriously been condemned as racist...and someone like Germaine Greer can be condemned as a reactionary, transphobic old woman ....it is getting hard to tell!!
It’s not just the Wiggles. I understand Biggles got into a spot of trouble too.
In my day a school lunch much beloved by schoolboys in England was Toad-in-the-hole followed by Spotted Dick—with custard of course.
John Nolan:
Thank you for the Kipling quote, which aptly describes so much of what passes for political conversation and media commentary nowadays.
Also, there’s a lot of good, earth(l)y wisdom in Yorkshire!
"I also accuse you of a remarkable uncharity -- or else you are guilty of a remarkable ignorance. You do know I am a Catholic, right? A Catholic priest, in fact? And you do know that Catholics are not materialists? So in effect, then, you accused me of heresy just now. Either that, or you think I am very stupid. That is not very nice at all."
If you were in a high school debate you would lose by making ad hominem arguments such as that whopper above.
Further in debate circles, your "...and implicitly, you indicate that you approve,..." is wrong again, since in high school debate participants argued a point whether they agreed with it or not. You can't simply say, according to high school debate guidelines, that simply because a person argues for a point he personally supports that point.
You say, "It does baffle me why anyone thinks it is such a good idea to let five or six -- or even nine -- people who are not elected, and can serve till their hearts stop -- have such vast power."
In high school civics class I learned that the Founders of our country thought that the establishment of the SCOTUS was a very good idea, that it ensures an independent judiciary, and that it serves as a needed element of our tripartite form of government. History indicates that the SCOTUS has done an exceedingly good job through the years, that our country has benefited tremendously from their wisdom and expertise, and that the Founders were right in how they put the Court together.
I don't categorize anyone as "the wrong people." I FULLY understand that the SCOTUS can make decisions with which I disagree, decisions that, as you put it, "push me around." But what you don't know is that I am 100% fine with that system. I don't live in a fantasy in which I think I have to get what I want all the time. That sort of thinking is what underlies the dangerous divisions we face in our country. Radical Individualism is what is tearing us apart.
Anonymous 2
A few years ago a left-wing local authority disciplined an employee for using the term 'taking the mickey' on the grounds that it was a racist slur on Irish people. As an Irishman I was insulted by the implication that the Irish were too thick to have come across the word 'micturation'. In short, they were taking the piss.
UK-Seminarian...
"Readers of this blog will be pleased to know I passed my first exam in moral theology at X UK Seminary with high distinction.
I look forward to long career serving the Church; in part by enlightening many lay people and Catholic students with my masterful grasp of the central principles of (up to date) Catholic moral theology"
I must say, your lowliness and humility shines through every word, and it takes some true creativity to trumpet yourself in so thoroughly an over the top manner as to more than exceed satire....all which was missing was, "It is ever so hard to be humble, when one is perfect in every way."
It also takes a very empty life to devote so much time to such internet buffoonery. When multiplied by the number of sites likely subject to your "wit", it indeed does show someone with truly nothing better to do, which would indeed make you quite typical of ever so many clerics if you actually pursue that path.
But, rest assured, that post left me in awe...it surely did. Aghast, even.
Bob,
I am the person behind "UK Seminarian". If my occasional attempts at humour through irony, parody or satire, call it what you will, do not amuse you at all, perhaps another might occasionally knowingly laugh a little?
I am not a seminarian but a lay person who in the mid 1990s studied for a theology degree at a Catholic institution where about half the students WERE seminarians. Some were shocked and confused by what some liberal, even radical, Catholic priests and nuns taught about moral theology, early Church history and the Mass etc.
"UK Seminarian" represents those seminarians I recall who eagerly embraced the, at times, "progressive" and heterodox nonsense we were often taught.
For example, Charles Curran's beliefs regarding sexual morality or how Martin Luther had a deeper and more scriptural understanding of the Eucharist and Real Presence than Aquinas...to how a lot of "traditional" Catholicism does not go back to the earliest centuries of Christianity but were later "medieval accretions"....
And I could give many more examples.
BTW, only one priest/lecturer was ever disciplined. After more than a decade basically denying the Resurrection, Father X was dismissed (from this institution but not the priesthood).
I wonder if it would even be possible to do a mocking imitation of lecturers like Father X? Would it even be possible to significantly exaggerate what such people taught in order to both show up the errors and have a laugh at the same time?
Finally, you are a bit quick to judge, Bob. I have many more important things to do than attempt "wit" on Catholic blogs. Among other duties, I am at present caring for my very ill 85 year old mother.
But most days I at least glance at either this blog or Fr Z's blog or have a Taylor Marshall YouTube clip as something to listen to while cooking and cleaning etc and that's it. I have never read anything at PrayTell, the NCR, Rorate Caeli (sp?), the Tablet etc and so on that are often referred to by commentators on this blog.
That will do, for now.
PG.
Anonymous - not only have you called me a heretic, you call me a liar, too. Not nice at all.
Sounds like the joke was on them, John. But I guess it’s all his story now.
In addition to referring to micturition, another explanation I have seen for the expression is Cockney rhyming slang “taking the Mickey Bliss.” Research indicates the Mickey is unidentified so there is no reason to think it has anything to do with the Irish.
Please stop attacking UK Seminarian or he might stop posting.
Anonymous:
“I FULLY understand that the SCOTUS can make decisions with which I disagree, decisions that, as you put it, ‘push me around.’ But what you don't know is that I am 100% fine with that system. I don't live in a fantasy in which I think I have to get what I want all the time. That sort of thinking is what underlies the dangerous divisions we face in our country. Radical Individualism is what is tearing us apart.”
Well said! To be sure, the Rule of Law in this country is imperfect. But would we really want the alternative?
And please, I don’t want to hear anyone ever again tell me that President Trump supports the Rule of Law. He does so only when a court rules in his favor or when the police or the DHS enforce the law against “undesirables” and other “lowlifes,” with an emphasis on the “force” bit.
Here, for example, is the graceless and highly misleading statement from USCIS on yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on DACA:
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-statement-supreme-courts-daca-decision
And now we have another attempted “Friday night massacre,” at the SDNY. Good bloody grief! Something rotten in the state of Denmark? When will it stop? Next January?
I would hope my fellow Catholics on this Blog would be as righteously angry about the barrage of lies and falsehoods to which we are constantly subjected by this Administration and about its constant assaults on the Rule of Law as they are about some other matters.
Bob and others,
I will probably give "UK Seminarian" a short holiday, I have more to do as in, for example, my 22 year old son has lost his driver's license for drink driving and I have to drive him to and from work.
(Spoiler Alert!)
If and when "UK Seminarian" returns his words will often be those at times used by my daughter who attends a private Catholic school and has learnt this year how wonderful it is modern bishops rightly give more emphasis to "structural sin" as opposed to personal sin; and how the many manifestations of "homophobia" can be more sinful than homosexual activity itself...and other such gems.
PG.
I don't know where you got the idea that I called you a liar. And I never called you a heretic. But keep saying those things if it makes you feel better...
What I did say was that YOU brought up "high school debate" and then promptly violated the procedures of "high school debate" willy-nilly.
There's no debate that that was not the smartest move there.
Anonymous 2
I'm not going to be drawn on the pro- or anti-Trump argument, and would agree that it is the rule of law rather than ideas of democracy (which can be easily subverted) which guarantees our freedoms. The UK did not have universal manhood suffrage until 1918. I admire the US Constitution, although it was drawn up by Englishmen who viewed the British Constitution through the prism of the French 'philosophes' - the supposed 'separation of powers' did not in fact exist.
The settlement of 1689 established that the executive (the monarch) could not 'suspend' the laws. The laws that James II had suspended were the Penal Laws against his Catholic and Nonconformist subjects. Thus we have a general principle (the rule of law) in effect overriding natural justice.
As you are no doubt aware, between 1997 and 2010 the UK had a 'modernizing' Labour government which pushed through far-reaching constitutional changes which were not well thought-out and have had unfortunate and in many cases unforeseen consequences. In 2009 a UK Supreme Court was established to replace the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At the time some warned that it would become politicized and would find itself on a collision course with the executive. This is precisely what happened in the autumn of 2019.
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that it cannot be like SCOTUS. But we have had some judicial decisions lately at all levels that do not inspire confidence that the rule of law will protect even such basic rights as freedom of speech or even freedom of thought.
PG.....
satire is grande when all are aware of it being satire. Considering most of what is posted today on the internet, and written in all seriousness by its earnest spewers, unintentionally/uncaringly vastly exceeds satire, parody, and reason, posts being satire run the likely risk of being taken in earnest by readers who are unable to detect tone from only printed letters.
And there are at least half the posters here operating under false and changeable names on a regular basis, it seems, making it ever more difficult to detect than it would be even on a level playing field.
The internet is mostly only a hall of mirrors of the funhouse distorted variety. But many of its writers would appear distorted even in the most perfect of mirrors.
My regrets for spoiling anyone's fun.
Anonymous 2
What below do you disagree with and why? (I don't mind learning something)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Deputy Director for Policy Joseph Edlow issued the following statement on today’s Supreme Court decision on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program:
Today’s court opinion has no basis in law and merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program.
“DACA was created through an Executive Branch memorandum after President Obama said repeatedly that it was illegal for him to do so unilaterally and despite the fact that Congress affirmatively rejected the proposal on multiple occasions. The constitutionality of this de facto amnesty program created by the Obama administration has been widely questioned since its inception. The fact remains that under DACA, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens continue to remain in our country in violation of the laws passed by Congress and to take jobs Americans need now more than ever. Ultimately, DACA is not a long-term solution for anyone, and if Congress wants to provide a permanent solution for these illegal aliens it needs to step in to reform our immigration laws and prove that the cornerstone of our democracy is that presidents cannot legislate with a ‘pen and a phone.”
"But we have had some judicial decisions lately at all levels that do not inspire confidence that the rule of law will protect even such basic rights as freedom of speech or even freedom of thought."
If that is not an understatement yet, it seems that it is on its way to being so.
Y’all ran off UK Seminarian. We are doomed.
If it will help, I give PG/UK-Seminarian unrestricted/unremunerated/uncited full access to my, "It is ever so hard to be humble, when one is perfect in every way," line as a peace offering.
I, personally, will even claim I lifted it from him, rather than the truth of the matter being it lifted from an episode of Gilligan's Island.
Anonymous:
For the moment I will stick to the more obvious legal points and not address the economic ones:
“Today’s court opinion has no basis in law.”
Really? Five Justices on SCOTUS would beg to differ. That’s why we have appellate courts—to make a decision, in hard cases that could go either way because there are typically good arguments on either side, about what the law is/should be. Now I concede that some decisions are “thinner” than others, but I don’t think this was one of them. Think about what the USCIS statement is actually asserting—not just that they disagree with the decision and that they believe the arguments on their side were stronger but that there were NO arguments at all that could be made for the petitioners. The lower courts clearly thought there were and, as I said, so did five of the Justices. I could get into specific legal analysis but I don’t think that’s what you were asking me for.
“Merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program.”
The point about delay is correct. Regarding the adjective “illegal”, see point about constitutionality below.
“After President Obama said repeatedly that it was illegal for him to do so unilaterally”
No. See https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jan/09/donald-trump/obama-hedged-didnt-say-he-lacked-legal-right-daca/
“Despite the fact that Congress affirmatively rejected the proposal on multiple occasions”
No. Congress failed to pass the Dream Act, a form of permanent relief granting a path to citizenship, which is vastly different from the temporary DACA program granting deferred action (i.e., “we won’t deport you for now” and give you a kind of temporary status with employment authorization), renewable every two years until the Administration decides to end it. The implication that Congress affirmatively rejected DACA (and not the Dream Act) is highly misleading.
See further: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-daca-and-other-policies-designed-protect-dreamers
“The constitutionality of this de facto amnesty program created by the Obama administration has been widely questioned since its inception”
Probably true but misleading because its constitutionality has also been widely supported. See, e.g., https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf
By the way, SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of DACA in its decision this week. The decision was based on a point of administrative law requiring adequate reasoning for this type of administrative action.
“Presidents cannot legislate with a ‘pen and a phone.’”
True. But did Obama “legislate” or did he exercise prosecutorial discretion? See above regarding constitutionality. I have no idea what “pen and a phone” refers to. Perhaps they mean President Trump and his tweets.
I hope this helps.
Bob and RCG and others,
Did you not read what John Nolan wrote above at 10.59am?
Can't you ask yourself why for John Nolan, an Englishman, it was immediately obvious the ravings of "UK Seminarian" were an example of irony?
In search for an answer to your and other Americans irony deficiency I found 2 good articles.
"For us Americans, Irony is still no Joke" by Guardian journalist, Michael Goldfarb.
And at Business Insider, Gus Lubin wrote "Here's the Real Reason Americans don't get Irony".
And the spirit and "theology" of "UK Seminarian" can hardly be said to have been "run off" when only 24 hours later on this blog Bishop John Stowe can be heard addressing the LGBT community during Gay Pride week. And it is very likely "UK Priest" will return soon etc and so on....
Bob, before the internet existed, English people could often say things with implicit meanings that are contrary to their literal meanings - aka irony - that would go right over most Americans' heads.
Having my first 2 coffees today I enjoyed reading several articles that attempt to explain why this is so.
It was interesting, for example, reading of intelligent Americans arriving in London and it taking some time for them to realize that often an Englishman can be being very polite but in no way sincere.
PG.
PG, I am well accustomed to irony, even English irony of my great-grandfather from England, and if you read many of my posts, half of them are ironic, at minimum.
But, since you likely have not done that, anymore than I follow every comment to your own comments, you may trust me in that the failure was in lack of tone to typed letters, and, again, the over-the-top nature of your post was obvious, but so many posts, including here, are quite sincerely over the top, and posted in deadly seriousness. Irony is quite hard to detect in an age of insanity.
Chicago Seminarian here,
How to sum up and describe this blog?
"You may know your Latin Rights; but you do NOT reflect Jesus Christ!!"
"Irony deficiency".....etc. : LOL!
Bob,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate and agree with your last sentence:
"Irony is quite hard to detect in an age of insanity."
I thought of that line about an hour later when I asked my daughter what she was reading online. She showed me and my first reaction was: is this online piece by a genuine liberal Catholic feminist and meant to be taken seriously or is it by someone (male or female, Catholic or non-Catholic?) undertaking a mocking imitation of what a liberal, Catholic feminist could write. For example :
"...the idea that labor pain is a sort of extra-special female-only punishment sin is nothing but ancient misogyny..... virginity is not a physical state....a lot of the theorizing about virginal birth (especially that by Augustine and Aquinas) has basically involved the sexual harassment of the Mother of God!"
PG
PS- from now on all I write here will be what I "PG" believe and what my opinions really are; I will no longer attempt mocking imitations of others' views and beliefs. What is the point? When I can simply occasionally provide quotes like that one above?
Bob,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate and agree with your last sentence:
"Irony is quite hard to detect in an age of insanity."
I thought of that line about an hour later when I asked my daughter what she was reading online. She showed me and my first reaction was: is this online piece by a genuine liberal Catholic feminist and meant to be taken seriously or is it by someone (male or female, Catholic or non-Catholic?) undertaking a mocking imitation of what a liberal, Catholic feminist could write. For example :
"...the idea that labor pain is a sort of extra-special female-only punishment sin is nothing but ancient misogyny..... virginity is not a physical state....a lot of the theorizing about virginal birth (especially that by Augustine and Aquinas) has basically involved the sexual harassment of the Mother of God!"
PG
PS- from now on all I write here will be what I "PG" believe and what my opinions really are; I will no longer attempt mocking imitations of others' views and beliefs. What is the point? When I can simply occasionally provide quotes like that one above?
Clarification of my 4:45 p.m. post (to avoid confusion in case anyone reads the SCOTUS Opinion):
To try to keep things simple, the first point refers to the petitioners. By this I mean the original plaintiffs challenging the rescission. Technically, the Administration is the petitioner on appeal.
Also, another arguably objectionable aspect to the USCIS statement is the use of the word “amnesty.” Typically an amnesty is granted to wrongdoers. It is difficult to argue that people brought to this country by their parents (average of 7 I believe) did anything wrong themselves, even when the parents acted in violation of law, unless of course we want to revert to the principle that the “sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children.”
Anonymous2
Can you comment on the following by Justice Thomas:
“DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. … So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.”
And on the following:
Does DACA likely violate 8 USC 1225(b)(2)? That statute requires that any alien an ICE officer determines to be inadmissible “shall” be placed in removal proceedings. This law was passed Congress in 1996 to stop the “catch and release” policies of the Clinton Administration.
Does DACA require an act of Congress?
The Obama Administration’s original DACA memorandum said it “confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”
It is a problem that the DHS did not promulgate a formal rule, with notice and public comment, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act?
PG....
The post you quote is by somebody quite unfamiliar with our Catholic triple/quadruple-whammy nethod of reading scripture, and it quite sad, as this was an author who began with a known to them conclusion, who strained gnats while swallowing a camel entire and raw to prove it by whatever misuse of a snippet as possible......
such as it also mysogenistic to explain the OTHER half of the origin of humanity's human condition of a lifetime of hard labor?
We have at least literal/historical, allegorical, and spiritual, not to belabor figurative and prophetic/typological et al, and Augustine never would have converted from his Manichean pleasure seeking fame, lifestyle and religion had Ambrose not clued him in on that, as otherwise he was just as scoffing of scripture literalism and the religion as is that writer,... showing the writer has never even read Augustine's own beliefs and teachings encapshlated in his biography. But yet speaks as if intimate with his undergirding beliefs.
I write this for your daughter should she see faceless idiots hiding behind keyboards as repositories of knowledge, while pointing that anyone with true expertise on any one subject matter can point out that 95% of all internet posts on any of those subjects is provably utterly incorrect drivel, and that should she desire to be a true skeptic, the very first place she should apply that laser intellect is in understanding 95% of all internet content is a damnable lie.
Some probably didn't get PG's joke because Bob and a couple others are obsessed with Fr Kavanaugh and thought UK Seminarian was his alter ego. Bob and his ilk are usually too busy trashing as many people as possible in these comboxes to care about who is who or what anyone actually thinks or believes.
NAK
PG
The insanity probably began with the rise of modern feminism. Back in the 1990s I read a book wherein practising Anglicans expressed their views about their Church. One woman spoke of her outrage when her local vicar prayed the Hail Mary. 'So demeaning to women!' That a professed Christian could view the Angelic Salutation as irredeemably 'sexist' suggests some mental derangement.
I suspect she is now an Anglican priestess with outsize earrings, and with any luck her erstwhile vicar has joined the Ordinariate.
John and Bob,
Thanks for your replies/comments. I am 90 plus % certain that the writer of the article my daughter was reading is a well educated - perhaps better educated in "women's studies" and deconstruction than scripture? - young Catholic woman; and she is serious.
Her article begins thus:
(And I could have chosen worse parts from other articles on this site)
"Like the phase of the moon, or my menstrual cycle, the debate surrounding Mary's labor pain has made it's monthly reappearance. There is still a strong contingent of male Catholics who think Mary did not experience any pain during Jesus' birth. Augustine and Aquinas would have agreed with them.....
As lovely is the image of a calm, peaceful and pain-free Virgin Mother might be, the teaching is rooted in misogyny, a disgust for the natural power of a woman's body and a creepy fixation on Our Lady's internal anatomy..."
I'll quite no more.
What I have never understood for over 30 years is when a Catholic nun or Catholic laywoman is SO convinced the Catholic Church is SO misogynistic and SO angry about it ....and also angry about other Catholic Church teachings..
why stay Catholic? Why not find a Protestant denomination where they could be more at home, more at peace, more with liked minded people?!
I have not reflected as much on this till today. Could it be possible that some bright, well educated, feminist Catholic women stay Catholic because they have a desire (or even feel a duty?) to convince as many other Catholic women as possible, especially very young Catholic women, to abandon "simplistic, traditional, theologically outdated nonsense" and embrace their own modern views and beliefs on women/theology and women and Church?
PG.
I am sorry if I have written so much.
Perhaps I should start my own blog?
I have been "incurably Catholic" since the age of about 7.
Total abstinence from alcohol, long daily walks, fish oil etc has much improved my memory. I can recall being only about 11 and 12 and reading the novel "The Cardinal". Even back then in c. 1974 an aunt thought this was strange and I clearly remember her giving me a novel by Sartre to read, "The Age of Reason", I think it was....
Anyway, I think I will have a short break from www internet etc.
I now have to decide whether to watch a documentary on the ex Jesuit Malachi Martin or a movie about an FBI agent who infiltrates a white supremacy terrorist group. If my Aunty Maria was still alive and here she'd tell me " For God's sake watch the FBI agent movie !!"
To finally end my contribution to this thread, I'd like some prayers if possible for my wife who is only 44 but has had episodes of treatment resistant depression since the birth of my daughter, mentioned above, and is now back self medicating with insane amounts of vodka despite having full knowledge she now has a damaged liver, and chronic kidney disease...
Thank you.
PG.
Anonymous (at 8:39 am, June 20) said...
"I don't know where you got the idea that I called you a liar."
If you were in a high school debate you would lose by making ad hominem arguments such as that whopper above. (Bolding added for clarity.)
-- You said that, June 19, at 4:26 pm. Look for yourself.
Definition of whopper
1: something unusually large or otherwise extreme of its kind
2: an extravagant or monstrous lie
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whopper
"And I never called you a heretic.
I asked: "...who, exactly, claims 'humans are...simply biological'"?
You do, in terms of human sexual orientation.
-- You said that on June 18, at 6:01 pm. Go look. There you accused me of the heresy of materialism, asserting that humans are merely biological.
Why are you unwilling to own up to your own words?
PG
If they were that bright and well-educated they would realize that women were more valued in the Catholic Church than ever they were in the post-Reformation protestant cults. Think John Knox and the 'monstrous regiment of women'.
The role of women in the medieval church has been highlighted in recent academic studies by (wait for it) female historians.
My dear NAK, I am obsessed over nobody on this board and merely made the mistake of taking a straight up post for a straight up post, while somewhat confused by replies from other folk who normally were quite orthodox seeming chummy with unorthodox poster in this instance.
I have zero respect for those who visit only to throw firebombs, you'll not see me visiting some "progressive" site to do the same.
And I have less than zero respect for those who do so under a multitude of names, which shows true obsession. Masking, for the record, same as its fabric namesake, is easily penetrated and seen through by concentrating on the holes rather than threads or overlay, and origin ISP, computer or phone operating system and etc easily determined with fair accuracy.
PG...
My assertion is that people obsess over such matters and are addicted to outrage, latest news, latest cause, as they have no meaning in life, otherwise. The internet has magnified this truly by magnitudes.
I am old enough to remember when seeking such titillation over seeking God was a sin requiring confession.
Now, it is the stuff of bishop announcements.
As for those horrid pangs of childbirth, it is a fact that in many cultures not so preconditioned, a pregnant woman at her daily occupations might cease them only long enough to give birth, and then return straight back to the business at hand.
PG, just caught your last post....my memory goes back to being moved from crib to bed to make room for new little sister 1.5yrs younger than me who needed the crib.
Of course, you have my prayers. Life is muchly pain, and we all have a tendency to recall pain in detail while happiness and joy much harder to recall in such detail, and it easy to fixate on the pain, hold it fast, relive it constantly, and then seek some anaesthetic to dull it. The only effective cure I know of is to show it all to God in trusting love, and simply say to him, "you see?!", and abandon self to him in all the pain and misery, and willing to be there with both it and him.
As for the internet, the real world is ever so much more real, and where we belong, and we especially belong more in returning our Lord's love as much as possible each day, than anywhere else.
If I might recommend a small book or three, for daughter, wife, or even you, Fr. Gabriel Diefenbach wrote a lovely small book on the aim of the interior, and even entire, Christian life titled "Common Mystic Prayer." It is no how-to, but a what, written in the mid 1940s. There is the classic English "Cloud of Unknowing" written seemingly personally to each reader as a how-to from 1000yrs ago. And from the 1700s is Bishop Challoner's "Meditations For Every Day Of The Year" (my edition from 1915 Oxford Press) covering the entire of Christian doctrine in a pocket-sized book of only a page or two per day while focused on fostering that sense of love so neccessary for authentic Christian prayer. Meanwhile, blessings on both you and yours.
Bob,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. I will definitely check out the books you referred to....I think this might be my last post for a while and I don't think I'll ever mention a family member again.... except to offer a challenge to anyone here on this blog: how about you each attempt next Lent what my daughter achieved last Lent; that is zero use of social media for the duration of Lent?
PG.
Bob @12.10pm,
Regarding tracing people it is not that easy.
My 2 main memories of the first month on the job.
1. A married mid 30s woman has received vile online messages which escalate to terrible threats of sexual violence. The messages are traced. Police knock on the door. Police only say a few words and a pathetic 16 year old boy probably influenced by sick pornography confesses all.
2. Hardcore child porn is being downloaded to a particular computer. In this state downloading such evil child porn can easily result in 2 years in jail. Police knock on the right door where X lives alone and he is almost for certain guilty, but unlike the 16 year old kid he is calm and cunning. He tells police he often has parties at his place, often has relatives visit, often has people at his place after work, on all occasions there is heavy drinking etc so anyone of 20 people visiting his home could have downloaded that material... He knows it is hard to legally prove otherwise ...
Oh, one other memory. A psychiatrist is being questioned about different illegal material being written by one particular suspect. The subject matter is identical and the author's style of writing is so VERY similar etc. The psychiatrist answered: my speciality is psychiatry NOT linguistics!
Bob, did you once not claim to know that UK Priest could actually be traced to the USA and not the UK?
And UK Priest denied it was possible for you to do this?
AJP.
Bob, maybe you could try to be someone you yourself would respect.
As for me, I've never visited a site to throw fireballs. I come here because I agree with and enjoy most of the content. As I've said before, I'm a traditionalist. You sometimes write amazingly beautiful things and you'd be surprised how often I agree with you. However, you blindly attack others and I don't respect such people regardless of how much I agree with them.
NAK
Anonymous at June 20, 9:54 p.m.:
I will confine myself to two points. I don’t think this is the venue for a detailed legal analysis but I also want to try to be responsive to your questions and your interest:
(1) Your three questions contain one common element: specifically the question: Was DACA unlawful? As to that, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. For the arguments that it was a lawful exercise of the Administration’s power to exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant deferred action, see the law professors’ memorandum I linked earlier:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Immigrants/LawProfLetterDACAFinal8.13.pdf
It is worth noting, too, that in a statute “shall” does not always mean “shall” in the sense of absence of discretion. In the case of immigration, for example, how can Congress really mean “shall” when it does not provide the resources for the agencies to make that a reality? As the memorandum says on page 4:
“Prosecutorial discretion exists because the government has limited resources and lacks the ability to enforce the law against the entire undocumented population. Recognizing this resource limitation, Congress has charged the Secretary of DHS with ‘establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.’”
(2) Regarding Justice Thomas’s notion that a determination of unlawfulness ends the inquiry, the Court (i.e., majority Opinion) focuses the inquiry as follows (see page 19):
“Whether DACA is illegal is, of course, a legal determination, and therefore a question for the Attorney General. But deciding how best to address a finding of illegality moving forward can involve important policy choices, especially when the finding concerns a program with the breadth of DACA. Those policy choices are for DHS.
And it concludes (at page 27):
“The dissent is correct that DACA was rescinded because of the Attorney General’s illegality determination. See ante, at 20. But nothing about that determination foreclosed or even addressed the options of retaining forbearance or accommodating particular reliance interests. Acting Secretary Duke should have considered those matters but did not. That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.”
Justice Thomas disagrees. Fair enough. But he was in the minority. That’s how it always works. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about matters, and that is even truer regarding legal cases that have no clearly correct answer but where reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.
By the way, to be clear, in acknowledging that the question of legality was for the Attorney General, the Court is not denying it is a question ultimately for the courts but that it is not a question for the Secretary of DHS. For the majority’s analysis of the policy considerations, see pp. 19-27:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
[continued]
Trump whines too much. He should be a man and suck it up just like Obama had to suck it up when SCOTUS upheld, by default, the (itself also questionable) Fifth Circuit decision invalidating the DAPA program and DACA Extension in 2014. I didn’t like that decision but I accepted it because, again, that’s how it works. To anticipate a possible next question, are there hypothetical or actual decisions I would not accept because so egregiously unjust/evil? Yes, of course. But how can any reasonable person possibly contend that the DACA rescission decision or the DAPA decision are remotely like that?
And to drive the point home, I didn’t like the SCOTUS decision on the so-called “Muslim ban.” But I accepted it. What is more, I consider that it was correctly decided legally, that is, I consider that the arguments for upholding the “ban” were stronger than the arguments for invalidating it. And I would like to think that I would have so decided if I had been a conscientious judge responsible for deciding the question, despite my personal objections to it as a matter of policy. To be clear again, I would not have upheld the first (or even the second) instantiation of the “ban” because they were seriously defective, especially the first (what a dog’s breakfast that was!). Another lesson the Administration had to learn: Do it right or do it over.
My own personal take on the "subtext" in the SCOTUS DACA decision is that, as the Court acknowledges, the Administration has every legal right to end DACA, but it should be honest and forthright about its reasons. Whether to rescind DACA is indeed a question for the Administration but it should be transparent about it and have the guts to accept responsibility for the consequences (see the Court’s discussion of reliance interests) by addressing them explicitly so the decision can be the subject of open and honest political debate. It certainly should not expect the courts to do its dirty work for it.
Correction – the SCOTUS default decision on DAPA was in 2016, not 2014. I frequently get numbers wrong!
When asked his opinion regarding televising hearings before the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer, third longest serving member of the Court behind (1) Thomas and (2) Ginsberg, said he doubted if there would be much of an audience once people saw what went on.
He said that they are discussing most often the meaning of the second comma on line 63 of page 387(a) of a contract between Cogswell Cogs and Spacely Space Sprockets.
Not exactly scintillating TV viewing.
John Nolan,
Yes the Catholic Church was “demeaning” to women when it included so many female saints in the Roman Canon. How does that fit the liberal narrative about sexism in the Church? Is it possible that “liberal” priests stopped saying the Roman Canon since it did not advance the narrative?
Anonymous at 8:21 a.m.:
But there’s very little more exciting than the placement of a comma, unless it be the placement of a semi-colon. But for sheer ecstasy, nothing beats the period, Everything comes to a full stop then.
Anon 2 -
You and I and a handful of other grammar nerds understand the importance of commas, semi-colons, and their punctuational brothers and sisters.
I deeply regret that The Society for the Preservation of the Apostrophe, of which I was a member, was disbanded in December of 2019.
You and I would have enjoyed immensely the "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" that introduced Docket No 18-411, "Society for the Preservation of the Apostrophe v. EVERYONE."
Alas.....
Post a Comment