Catholic Lobby Rejects the Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

[stumbledin]

In response to news reports of President Trump’s planned nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become a Supreme Court Justice, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice announces its opposition to Judge Barrett. Years of decisions by Judge Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals prove that she does not hold all life to be sacred, as we are instructed to do by Catholic Social Teaching and Pope Francis.

The next Justice who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg must advocate for the equally sacred issues that Pope Francis calls all people of good faith to defend: the vulnerable, those in poverty, and immigrants. Until an appointee is presented who can meet this call, as Justice Ginsburg did, the Senate must not consider filling the vacancy.

To move forward with the nomination of Judge Barrett weeks before a Presidential election is an assault on our democratic system. The people and their next chosen President must decide on the next Supreme Court Justice. Catholic voters will not accept a partisan power grab by President Trump, Senator McConnell, and his Republican colleagues.

Full press release networklobby.org/news/catholic-lobby-rejects-the-nomination-of-amy-coney-barrett/

I dont think this will stop Trump. It will be his "legacy" long after his presidency ends.

Interesting - good for them, and let's hope there are others who show a bit of integrity. They show up the hypocrisy of those who are interested more in suppressing women's rights than actually believing all life is sacred, not just fetal life.

Good on them

That's heartening, although I would guess that they represent the ultra liberal wing of US Catholics and would not be in the same league in terms of Catholic Trad values as Ms. Barrett. I say this as a liberal former Catholic who would never be considered Catholic in the US due to my views.

For a church which often sells itself (mostly to other Christians) as the big, unified, universal truth, the Catholic church is remarkably similar to all the other Christian factions, with numerous splits and divergent opinions.

Now, I think that's a good thing, tbh, I don't trust religions where everyone thinks exactly the same, but it does mean that people can be a bit hoodwinked by the various disparate groups under the umbrella of 'Catholic', who would be disavowed most emphatically by other Catholics entirely.

TL;DR - Catholics in the US and elsewhere are nowhere near a unified voice, so this is nice and all, but not much more.

@Glinnerisgreat

That's heartening, although I would guess that they represent the ultra liberal wing of US Catholics and would not be in the same league in terms of Catholic Trad values as Ms. Barrett. I say this as a liberal former Catholic who would never be considered Catholic in the US due to my views.

I wouldn't assume that. Catholics in the US are, as FloralBunting says, disparate, and some of them have been very influenced by evangelical politics. But from a big picture POV, even very traditional Catholicism don't have much in common with the economics and politics espoused by the Republicans or Democrats, being, for example, explicitly pro-union and suspicious of capitalism.

It's surprisingly pleasant when Christians actually stand by their values - good on this lobby for understanding the sanctity of life is not just a stick to beat women with.

Yeah, that's the kind of Catholicism I grew up with.

A far more dignified objection than the parts of what passes for progressive in the US, attacking Barrett for having adopted outside her race.

It seems that in fact she isn't an average Catholic (if there is such a thing) but part of a group called People of Praise:

" ... Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children. ... "

www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html

(Sort of proves Margaret Atwood right when she said everything in the Handmaid's Tale had happened somewhere in the world )

That's eye catching, of course, but there are lots of groups within Catholicism that would look bizarre when particular beliefs are taken out of context. That's often the nature of religious belief.

I'm the last person to suggest that traditionalist conservative Christianity is benign. I've lived through extreme versions of it, and it's not. I'm just not convinced dissecting her faith and pretending she's a cult member is going to achieve much.

I don't know, maybe I'm being squeamish and should get over myself. I mean, I don't think she's a good pick, but, fucksake, it's Donakd Trump's play. It's designed to wind up and divide people into factions, because that's his method of government.

I agree with the statement from the liberal Catholic group, and I think the 'seamless garment' approach to prolife ideas is a legitimate perspective and I always got a bit frustrated at the blinkered nature of the more trad pro life people.

I'm waffling now. Still thinking.

This isn't about Catholicism or splits or factions such as the division in Anglicism which has practically torn it in two but more about one charity group disliking the decisions and politics of an individual, a senior judge, soon to be even more senior, when the charity lobby group prefers those of the previous judge on the Supreme Court bench - who as far as I know wasn't even Catholic.

People of Praise isn't a specifically Catholic group. It is open to other Christian believers.

I would want to know something like this about someone taking decisions about other people's life. The same as wanting to know if they believed we are all being controlled by aliens.

Well sure, but as far as I can see the concern is the possible over turning of Roe v Wade. Which I totally understand and think that the campaign should absolutely focus on that concern.

I just think going on the beliefs of a group that she is part of, instead of her own record, falls into the same traps as bring concerned about a Muslim woman, say, because Islam only considers a woman's testimony as worth half a man's. It's judging the woman on what someone else says.

If she comes out and campaigns on a platform of women having to obey their husbands, then it's definitely highly relevant. The fact that she personally believes it about her own circumstances, isn't necessarily.

I mean, in all honesty, it's the US, the political climate is hideous and I understand that this will all get very personal and messy. I just have misgivings about this style of campaign about the woman (who, to reiterate, I don't agree with and wouldn't especially want as a supreme court justice).

If she has and intends to adhere to a previous vow to uphold the beliefs of the head of a very fringe group as opposed to the pope, who has voiced dubiety about this sort of Catholic and those conflict on any point with her oath to uphold the Constitution, then asking questions about this 1,700-person sect (divided into 22 groups) seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

I tried to find out judgement's she has made in her capacity as a judge, and it seems she is so newly qualified there aren't that many!

Which raises questions as to what experience is her nomination based on?

Would hate to think Trump thinks because she is young and female she is open to pressure.

Have never understood the US system of appointments and this just makes me feel it is not satisfactory and certainly shouldn't be part of an election campaign.

She is young and conservative; she'll be there long after he is dead and gone. I think that was all that mattered.

Oh, and she is female, so not likely to run into the problems Kavanaugh did.

She is young and conservative; she'll be there long after he is dead and gone. I think that was all that mattered.

Oh, and she is female, so not likely to run into the problems Kavanaugh did.

I think that is as deep as it gets with Trump.

@Abitofalark

This isn't about Catholicism or splits or factions such as the division in Anglicism which has practically torn it in two but more about one charity group disliking the decisions and politics of an individual, a senior judge, soon to be even more senior, when the charity lobby group prefers those of the previous judge on the Supreme Court bench - who as far as I know wasn't even Catholic.

FYI - In the US it is widely known that RBG was Jewish unless you live under a rock or know nothing about SCOTUS (probably a lot of the population actually).

For those of us that followed from her nomination, we know that she was the second female justice in SCOTUS and that she was the first Jewish female justice in our nation's history.

@stumbledin

I tried to find out judgement's she has made in her capacity as a judge, and it seems she is so newly qualified there aren't that many!

Which raises questions as to what experience is her nomination based on?

Would hate to think Trump thinks because she is young and female she is open to pressure.

Have never understood the US system of appointments and this just makes me feel it is not satisfactory and certainly shouldn't be part of an election campaign.

There are zero (yes zero) requirements to be nominated for SCOTUS - the Senate is the deciding voice on whether a nominee will be appointed.

FYI, SCOTUS appointment does not require the nominee to have a law degree or to be a licensed bar registered attorney or to be a judge.

Good for this group taking a stand but it won’t make a bit of difference.

Judge Barrett will see this as a God-given calling to overturn Roe v Wade.

Judge Barrett will see this as a God-given calling to overturn Roe v Wade.
Scary for women

She also wants to hack away at the Affordable Care Act which has increased access to women’s preventive health care eg mammograms, provided mothers with subsidised breast pumps, etc.

She will be an enemy to modern women but she will almost certainly be appointed speedily as the Republicans are afraid Trump will lose the election.

FireUnderTheHand

@stumbledin

FireUnderTheHand

Batshit isn't it?!?