Catholic Amy Coney Barrett Front-Runner as Trump Signals Supreme Court Nomination Plans

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thbolt said:
I don’t think a Jesuit priest’s supervisor is the bishop. I thought he left office because of a Vatican order that all priests could not serve in public office as a representative.
Click to expand...
You are right. And I have met and talked with Fr. Drinan. I believe he ended up teaching at Georgetown.
 
Last edited:
I don’t recall if there was any mandate in effect requiring priests to not hold public office. But it was widely considered improper, and he was criticized for it throughout his congressional career.

Finally, Pope JPII demanded that all priests withdraw from electoral politics. Fr. Drinan complied and did not seek re-election. He was a member of Congress from 1970 to 1981. His Wikipedia article notes: “According to the Wall Street Journal, Drinan played a key role in the pro-choice platform’s becoming a common stance of politicians from the Kennedy family.”
 
JimG said:
I don’t recall if there was any mandate in effect requiring priests to not hold public office.
Click to expand...
The mandate was that priests not be involved in or comment on politics (Hello, Father Pfleger?). to my memory. Fr. Drinan holding a political office was considered political action far over the bar. He had been previously warned by the Church that his stance on abortion did not reflect Church teachings. I’m not sure exactly what his position was, but I remember that much.
 
Last edited:
This contrast between the two judges is striking

It also does much to explain many of RBG’s votes, she wasn’t referencing the constitution.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Theo520 said:
It also does much to explain many of RBG’s votes, she wasn’t referencing the constitution.
Click to expand...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012: You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
 
Just saw the strangest thing. It was a national TV ad advocating the confirmation of Barrett. I want her confirmed, she will be outstanding as a justice, but seriously who was the advertisement directed at? Most all of the people who would see it have no say in regards to her confirmation. Some of these decision makers are not the sharpest pencils in the box.
 
Last edited:
Or it means the rest of the comment is not germane. I use it all the time to show I have copied only part of a sentence. There is nothing necessarily nefarious about it.
 
That is why I ignore them, unless they link original source data. I also ignore meme quotes, or at least enjoy them only for humor. Politically, they reveal nothing except what the person who makes them believes.

Those that know US history will remember that the Constitution was known at that time to have the same failing as RGB mentioned. The only reason it was ratified was a commitment, back when leaders believe integrity was important, to include a comprehensive Bill of Rights. Without that promise, and the integrity of our Founding Fathers, the Constitution would have taken longer to be accepted, if it were at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top