Friday, October 28, 2011

A Mean Attack on Justice Scalia - A Religious Fraud ?

There is a rather mean piece by a leading liberal blog and blogger I just saw. See Via Crooks and liars John Amato post Antonin Scalia's Selective Catholicism On Death Penalty.

These quotes well make me feel more sorry for Amato than Scalia:

...The televangelists made billions of dollars off our teevees and turned con men, liars, hypocrites and circus performers into mega millionaires. PFAW was Norman Lear's response after he saw some of these charlatan's become beltway darlings. Antonin Scalia is one of these religious frauds. He espouses that he is a devout Catholic, but when faced with a true tenet of Church doctrine, which is against the death penalty, he shrivels up into a typical movement conservative player:.

One feels what he is really is saying is I hate that jerk Scalia and here is my chance to twist the screws. Perhaps if Mr Amato was not out there on the west Coast cocooned in his world where he can evaulate who is bad and "frauds" but in D.C. it would be different. I have from various people that know him from all sides he is a very kind and GENUINE man. In fact on the most liberal of Law school he is a student favorite. Not only because he is very witty , smart, and funny but people sense he is genuine.

In fact from the rather large Catholic family that Scalia and his wife produced there was a vocation to the priesthood. Vocations , especially by men like Scalia who are in this very competive world, don't often come from frauds.

Mr Amato because I suppose he is out of the loop may have not got the memo but the word fraud is generally not associated with Scalia on any matter.

Now I will not rehash my remarks about this. Go down a few post where I respond to Lisa Williams on this topic. Needless to say Archbishop Hannan whose passing the whole State of Louisiana noted with much fanfare was no religious fraud. Yet for most of his life he held well Scalia position. He was the lone Bishop that would not sign off on this anti execution statement. In the very final years of his life he came around. Yet no one would ever think to call Archbishop Hannan a fraud.

Another person not no one would ever call a fraud is the late Cardinal Avery Dulles who passed away not too long ago. In his piece on this matter it appears that yes there is very ORTHODOX valid room for a faithful Catholic like Scalia to disagree a tad.

As I often note this issues just seems to get everyone's attention when it is a Catholic Justice or some Republican Governor running for President.

I find it curious that no one fails to note that a Catholic , even one opposed to State execution, can be on a jury where despite his feelings can take a oath to uphold the law in this matter. That is he or she will consider the mitigating and aggravating factors and decide to give Life or death. Unless it can be pointed out to me where the Church has said this is sinful or a Catholic cannot do that. A Juror is much more involved in giving death than Scalia is. Yet I can't find a Bishop's statement saying Catholics could not serve.

All of these should show this is all a tad more complicated than many think.

I can't get into Scalia's mind but I think what Scalia is saying if the Church said this was a intrinsic evil he would not be a part of it. That is it is akin to helping to facilitate an abortion. I say that because Judges have to as a part of their oath uphold laws they might find and indeed their Church might find immoral. No doubt Scalia has been in this situation. So I think Scalia is thinking intrinstic evil here and of course the Church has made no such claim.

The focus on Judges as to this matter is rather bizaree to me since even the latest theological statements on this matter urge that state execution be overturned by legislation and did not mention judicial fiat. A position taken by the way by quite a few anti execution adovcates in the legal field. One also I agree with 100 percent.

No comments: