Did Durbin and Feinstein Impose a Religious Test for Office?

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_trust
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

I_trust

Guest
“Professor Barrett was improperly questioned by the senators in three ways, with respect to reason, constitutional law, and the common good,” said Chad C. Pecknold, associate professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America. “It was an irrational line of questioning because it was based on a misreading of a 20-year-old article which attributed to the professor views contrary to the article itself. It was also unconstitutional, violating the prohibition against religious tests for public office.” Pecknold went on to say that the senators’ questions were just as harmful to the common good as ethno-nationalism is: “At a time in which the nation is badly frayed, disoriented, and confused, United States senators abused their high office to berate, slander, and demean a woman of exceptional legal wisdom simply because they suspected that aspects of her Catholic faith would make her an unjust judge.”
Click to expand...
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...l-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-religion-catholic

Also:

www.nationalreview.com

Dianne Feinstein Attacks Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith | National Review

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, for her Roman Catholic faith.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com
This afternoon, during a confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the nominee for her Roman Catholic faith…

In fact, Barrett has explicitly written that “judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” She has also insisted that judges ought to recuse themselves in situations when their faith conflicts with their judicial responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
Senator Feinstein asked the nominee whether she considered herself to be an “orthodox Catholic.” I was astonished at the question. There is no religious test for public office. I watched the questioning on a C-Span video. Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and Franken seemed to believe that the nominee’s Catholic faith disqualified her for the judiciary. I expect to see more of this sort of thing.
 
It wasn’t Feinstein who asked Barrett if she was an “orthodox Catholic”. I believe that was Durbin.

And Durbin is a Catholic.

I sincerely hope that wherever Durbin attends Mass this weekend the pastor gives a blistering sermon on what it means to be an “orthodox Catholic” and looks at him directly the entire time.

As for Feinstein, she’s done us a favor by taking the prejudice that the Democratic establishment harbors against Catholics out of the closet and fully into the open. It’s disgusting, but at least she’s being honest about it
 
Thanks for the correction. Yes, it was Senator Durbin who asked that question. I was just surprised and dismayed by the tone of the questioning from all three of them. I can’t imagine anyone asking, “would you consider yourself an orthodox presbyterian?” Or an orthodox Baptist.
 
Imagine the reaction if she asked “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Muslim”. There’s be riots.

I can, unfortunately, at this point imagine them asking “would you consider yourself an orthodox Presbyterian?” Or an orthodox Baptist.” We’re the most likely to get the question, of course, as at the end of the day everyone always knows that we are the Church and the world looks to us with respect and contempt. This shows how steeply the decline in our society has been over the past 50 years or so, with that decline accelerating rapidly.

But in some ways this gives us reason not to despair. The contempt is out in the open and now we have the clear ability to deny Christ or stand with him, crucified on the Cross, in the open. Feinstein and Durbin today are doing the same thing that the Romans did to us some 2,000 odd years ago. “Are you a Christian?” Answer yes, and bear the consequences. But that gives us the ability to bear witness.

Feinstein told Barrett that “the dogma is lives loudly within you, and that causes me concern”. I’m hoping that the phrase “the dogma lives loudly without you” becomes a kind of Catholic catchphrase the same way the Arabic letter “N” has become for Arabic Chrisitians. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that causes me concern”. Darned right, Feinstein and Durbin.

And, again, I frankly hope everyone who sits in Durbins pew gets up, moves a couple of rows away, and this weekend some Priest looks right at him and says “Does the dogma or the world live loudly within you? What about you, Dick?”
 
Last edited:
I logged in out of curiosity if this story had hit here, by the way. It only hit here a few minutes ago, I see.

Closet prejudice against orthodox Catholics has been present in this setting for a long time, in varying degrees. But make no mistake, this is a huge, huge deal. The Democrats on this committee, or at least three of them (I’m not sure how many on the committee there are) are giving her a bad time because she’s a Catholic. Welcome back to the Catholic Ghetto.

This is the biggest Catholic news story in the US this week, its enormous, and people better be paying attention. Catholics have become very influential in the judiciary and now they’re gunning for the orthodox ones, which should be all of us. And Feinstein’s comments couldn’t be more telling. Barrett is notable for authoring a law review article with the opinion that Catholic jurist should recuse themselves if they feel a legal issue doesn’t square with their morality. That’s the very opinion we’d think the Democrats would want. No, they just don’t want us on the bench at all. The “concern” they have here is that these judges will apply the law, unlike what (Catholic) Kennedy did in his opinion in Obergefell where the law was created to suit a social view and imposed on the public whether they wanted it or not. A species of judicial coup, basically.

What couldn’t be acquired democratically everywhere has been forced on the nation through the courts and now the Democratic establishment seeks to protect that ground. Anti Democratic, and Anti Catholic.
 
Good words, but it’s time to go the next step.

Why is it the case that Senators can grill Catholic lawyers on their orthodoxy, but Catholic clerics do not do the same of politicians and judges very often?

Will Dick Durbin be told to his face from the ambo that this is not in keeping with a man who understands his faith? Will Joe Biden be addressed on his views that do not square with the Church and asked if he values his soul and that of others or his politics? Will Anthony Kennedy be flatly told that, as one of the most powerful men in the nation, it’s time for him to examine his conscience, examine natural law, and ponder how he can address the damage he helped do? Probably not. In my view, they should be told that.

If not by the Priest, then by their fellow parishioners.
 
Maybe we should all consider adopting that phrase of Sen. Feinstein about the dogma living loudly within you. I can envision a homily which begins, “What kind of Catholic are you? Does the dogma live loudly within you? I hope so. Because dogma is from the Church, and the Church is from Christ, and Christ is the Savior come to live loudly within you, and to abide with you if you abide with him.”
 
JimG said:
Maybe we should all consider adopting that phrase of Sen. Feinstein about the dogma living loudly within you. I can envision a homily which begins, “What kind of Catholic are you? Does the dogma live loudly within you? I hope so. Because dogma is from the Church, and the Church is from Christ, and Christ is the Savior come to live loudly within you, and to abide with you if you abide with him.”
Click to expand...
That would be a great sermon, perhaps with a short introduction on the context, in and of itself.
 
From 2014…

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - In a recent letter to an Illinois pro-life activist, Bishop Paprocki said that “Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his Pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law. My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the Senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.”

Durbin was pro-life earlier in his political career. In 1989, several years before he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996, Durbin changed his position. He has since supported pro-abortion laws. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America give Durbin a 100 percent rating while the National Right to Life Committee gives him a zero rating.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It’s always amusing when people use “dogma”, usually precedent with the word religious, like it’s something bad, an archaic concept that one must always be on watch for. As if secular dogma does not exist or any liberal denomination is free of such a thing. There’s dogma and then there’s dogma.
 
Last edited:
This seems to be the case. The secular left hates anything conservative. The secular conservative wants the religious conservative to be put in a corner and not given any influence.
 
Last edited:
Durbin is “Catholic.” I bet he feels he has more of an identity for having Irish blood than his supposed Catholicism.
 
Nothing could be more dogmatic than the Left’s rigid adherence to its pro-abortion position. No dissent is allowed.
 
po18guy said:
The last acceptable prejudice: anti-Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Strange that anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, anti-Hinduism is condemned, but that anti-Catholicism is alive and well in the Democratic section of the US Senate. They are applying a religious test to Catholics only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top