Well, This Didn't Take Long!

Sooner or later, some Reasonable Pundit would bring up the usual canard. You know the one: Catholics can't be trusted to support the constitution, since Popes and Bishops tell them what to think. Well, Matthew Yglesias didn't keep me waiting long. He broaches the stereotype by seeking to legitimize his concern. A quick excerpt from the USCCB will do, or so he thinks:

We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. Certainly there are times when it may be impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes a moral evil -- such as a law allowing the destruction of nascent human life. In such cases, an elected official, whose position in favor of life is known, could seek legitimately to limit the harm done by the law. However, no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power (Evangelium Vitae, 73-4). Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

Believing he has rhetorical cover, he then goes all "Know-Nothing":

This sounds a lot to me like a statement that if a Catholic finds himself in a position to overturn Roe v. Wade he has an obligation to do so. Obviously, what Bishops think and what actual Catholics do are often two different things. But it seems to me that it wouldn't be out of bounds for someone (ideally a Catholic Senator) to ask Samuel Alito what he thinks about that.

How convenient that he wouldn't find that out-of-bounds. I wonder, though: Would he have found in-bounds to ask Ruth Bader-Ginsberg about her religious beliefs? I somehow doubt it. After all, she's far to Reasonable to question. And everyone knows how Foolish those whacky Catholics are.

If Mr. Yglesias wants an appropriate way to ask a Catholic candidate about whether or not his religious views would affect his jurisprudence, why doesn't he just ask Professor Bainbridge?

If Alito is confirmed, it will be the first time in history that a majority of the justices are Roman Catholics. Are there cases in which such justices might feel religiously obligated to put their faith first?

While the Kennedy formulation may be good politics, it’s theologically unsound. The Vatican's 2003 Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life is the most recent authoritative Church statement on these issues. It states in pertinent part:

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.”

In 2004, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) elaborated on the Note in his statement Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles:

“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. ...

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

As a result, even in the sphere of political activity, the difference between formal and material cooperation with evil can lead to differing results. A Catholic who has good reason to support a pro-"choice" candidate despite the candidate's views on abortion thus does not commit formal cooperation with evil and, accordingly, is free to do so without violating any moral precept of the Church.

By analogy to these principles, we see that there are cases--albeit only in those limited class of cases in which a judge’s decision constitutes formal cooperation with evil--in which a Catholic jurist is religiously obligated to put his faith-based beliefs ahead of, say, his views of precedent. Conversely, however, it seems clear that judicial decisionmaking--even with respect to issues, like abortion, that raise very profound questions--under Church teaching does not per se constitute formal cooperation with evil.

In other words, thanks for playing. Try again!

If Reasonable elites want to find a way to disqualify Foolish Catholics because they value life, they'll need to find more convincing rhetoric than, "The Pope says so!" This tired Know-Nothingism won't cut it anymore.