The Folly Of Advocating That Justice Scalia Be Denied Communion

People sometimes don't want to admit but Catholic teaching does give some leeway to people on the issue of State Execution as many competent authorities have pointed out.

This issue has come up again as to "outrage" over comments that Justice Scalia has given as to State Execution at a Catholic University

See Can Scalia be denied communion now? and from another source Will Catholic Bishops Correct Justice Scalia?


What is striking is that people seem to forget unlike elected politicos we rarely hear call for Judges to be denied communion because of how they apply the law. We don't see that on the State, Local, or Federal level on issue from immigration , to execution , to even abortion.

Why is this? I am sure the matter might be complicated than Archbishop Chaptut puts it here but I think it's the general way of thinking. From The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver

WENDY KAMINER, THE PHOENIX: The majority of the Supreme Court – five of our justices – are Catholic. Given your sense of the obligations of Catholics to promote laws and policies in keeping with Catholic beliefs, is there a civics argument for religious diversity on the court, given its power to make law in a pluralistic society?

CROMARTIE: Let me follow up her question by asking one of my own, adding to it. What would you think about nine Catholics on the court? Is there a statute of limitations on the number of Catholics that can be on the court? Wendy, I know that you would probably appreciate that addition to your question.

CHAPUT: The Supreme Court doesn’t make law, as we know. It interprets the law. I think it’s much easier from a moral perspective to be a justice – a judge – than it is to be a legislator. Legislators are the ones who make laws and change laws. But to interpret the law in its fidelity to the Constitution is a much less morally compromising kind of position to have, I think.

I’d rather be a justice than a politician, in terms of dealing with my conscience, because if we write bad laws in this country that are constitutional, then the judges – the justices – have to interpret the laws as allowed by the Constitution, even if they don’t like them, even if they would think they’re not good for the country, it seems to me, even if they think they’re not moral. That’s what justices do. So I had the impression that Wendy thinks that the Supreme Court writes the law. Certainly that’s not my impression. I know it can’t write the law. In terms of not wanting all the justices to be Catholics, I agree with you, Michael. That would not be a good idea in the United States.

Now if people are wanting the Church to starting sanctioning Catholic Judges well ok. But they need to lay out a grounds for such a dramatic switch.

Returning to Scalia as to abortion (which seems to be ignored)


..Scalia said he's "sometimes embarrassed" when abortion opponents thank him for being an advocate for their cause because he often sides in legal decisions with their attempts to limit access to abortion.

"I'm embarrassed because, of course, I did not champion their cause," Scalia said. "I would no more hold that the Constitution requires abortion to be prohibited than I would hold that it forbids abortion to be prohibited. In my honest reading of the constitutional text, it addresses the subject not at all, which means it is left for the people of the state...

Why on why is that being ignored. Scalia does not think he can just by fiat stop all abortions. It would appear that under Chaput's reasoning he would be OK and would not get any Church sanctions. I have to think that is the case since I have heard hardly no calls to sanction Catholic Judges on that matter.