Should Chief Justice Anthony Kennedy be excommunicated?

[rmartensjr]

Any Catholic politician, appointed government official, public figure, celebrity, anyone who publicly proclaims beliefs counter to Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality, or any other grave sin should be denied the sacraments until they publicly admit their error and seek reconciliation from their local bishop. Their parish pastors should be instructed to turn them away from the Eucharist if they present themselves.

Actions have consequences.

The Church can be merciful and strong at the same time.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Let’s not forget Sonia Sotomayer. Why does she get a pass?

I think the chance that she would care hovers near 0. Same with Kennedy. But it ain’t gonna happen anyway, you just about can’t get excommunicated anymore and that approach is working like a charm bringing this bunch back to the Church. You can’t fault success when you get results like this…

 

[phil19034]

I think the chance that she would care hovers near 0. Same with Kennedy. But it ain’t gonna happen anyway, you just about can’t get excommunicated anymore and that approach is working like a charm bringing this bunch back to the Church. You can’t fault success when you get results like this…

Well… dissent priests and nuns get excommunicated all the time. For example, the priests and nuns affiliated with the Army of Mary were excommunicated for heresy.

The last American public figure that I’m aware of (who wasn’t a priest or religious) who was publicly excommunicated was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, in 1968, for illicitly & invalidly marrying Aristotle Onassis.

Truth be told, I don’t know if an American politician has ever been publicly excommunicated before.

 

[Gaudium]

But he is still a Catholic and that means he is required to follow Church Teaching in all matters which includes Same Sex Marriage. He is suppose to use Church Teaching in influencing his decisions whether they are personal or official. This applies to all Catholics.

So, if a Catholic Supreme Court Justice encounters a case where the requirements of the U.S. Constitution are in conflict with Catholic doctrine, the Justice is “required” (your word) to overturn the Constitutional requirement, and rule in favor of Catholic doctrine?

 

[R_H_Benson]

So, if a Catholic Supreme Court Justice encounters a case where the requirements of the U.S. Constitution are in conflict with Catholic doctrine, the Justice is “required” (your word) to overturn the Constitutional requirement, and rule in favor of Catholic doctrine?

Yes. Or he should recuse himself or resign.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

So, if a Catholic Supreme Court Justice encounters a case where the requirements of the U.S. Constitution are in conflict with Catholic doctrine, the Justice is “required” (your word) to overturn the Constitutional requirement, and rule in favor of Catholic doctrine?

The Constitution and BOR are based on Natural law, which is God’s truth. There is nothing in the Constitution that is contrary to God’s law. The SC has bastardized their interpretation of the Constitution to fit “the majority” which is pretty much bovine excrement.

The perfect example of where the SC decided against God’s law is Roe V Wade. The foundation of the decision was not in the Constitution or BOR.

Please, point out some SC decisions as examples of your question. I am really interested to see proof of your question.

Do you think the Dread Scott decision was proper?

 

[Catholic_Nation]

So, if a Catholic Supreme Court Justice encounters a case where the requirements of the U.S. Constitution are in conflict with Catholic doctrine, the Justice is “required” (your word) to overturn the Constitutional requirement, and rule in favor of Catholic doctrine?

I don’t really see when the US Constitution and Church’s Teaching would really conflict. Perhaps you can give an example?

But for the sake of argument that did happen then I would say that the Catholic Justice would have to take the Church Teaching first due to his of her obligation of obedience to the Church.

 

[teeboy]

With his continued rulings on the matters of Abortion and Same Sex Marriage he has been completely out of step with the Catholic teachings on these subjects.

Also with the recent Supreme Court ruling on legalizing Same Sex Marriage throughout America this has essentially destroyed the Traditional Meaning of Marriage which he voted in favor of. This is surly more than enough reason to support him being excommunicated.

I’m just astonished how much Catholics lawmakers can go so far away from Church teaching and still claim to be Catholic.

Understand that his job is to judge the law and not to apply catholic teachings.

 

[teeboy]

I don’t really see when the US Constitution and Church’s Teaching would really conflict. Perhaps you can give an example?

But for the sake of argument that did happen then I would say that the Catholic Justice would have to take the Church Teaching first due to his of her obligation of obedience to the Church.

But, if he did that, he would not be upholding the law which is his job. If he didn’t uphold the law, his credibility as a judge would diminish. He may be best off by abstaining.

The proper way to deal with this whole issue is to pass a constitutional ammendment. It is not proper for a judge to “legislate from the bench”. There are ways to legislate which are proper.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is not proper for a judge to “legislate from the bench”.

Is that written down somewhere in the Constitution?

 

[R_H_Benson]

The Constitution and BOR are based on Natural law, which is God’s truth. There is nothing in the Constitution that is contrary to God’s law.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

The Constitution is rooted in Englightenment principles and was composed by Free Masons. Therefore, its stance on religious liberty is far from Catholic. The traditional Catholic teaching on religious liberty is that error has no rights. The idea that all people have equal “rights” to practice whatever religion they choose is not a Catholic idea. Such an idea tramples the sovereign rights of Jesus Christ the King and the one Holy Catholic Church that He founded. What we find in the Constitution is indifferentism. Indifferentism is not Catholic. Indifferentism puts error on the same level as Catholic Truth and affords it the same rights. So, with indifferentism at its core, the Free Mason aspects of our Constitution place themselves above the Church. The Enlightenment ideology of the subjective “rights” of the individual are given the same weight as the supreme rights of Our Lord and His Church. Therefore, although the Constitution does contain some noble ideologies (or at least has the potential to depending on SCOTUS interpretations) its stance on religious liberty is Masonic, certainly is not Catholic, and consequently violates the Natural Law.

 

[kozlosap]

Understand that his job is to judge the law and not to apply catholic teachings.

President Kennedy tried to make this stance clear. If the voters had not believed him, he would not have been elected.

 

[Tomdstone]

Understand that his job is to judge the law and not to apply catholic teachings.

No. I don’t think that a Catholic is supposed to do that? Take for example the Catholic teaching on just war. If a Catholic president has thought it out and sees that engaging in a certain war would be unjust and immoral from a Catholic standpoint, then should he disregard Catholic teachings on this and go ahead with the war anyway, knowing for sure that it is an unjust war according to Catholic principles?

 

[Personanongrata]

We will never have another Catholic POTUS.

 

[phil19034]

We will never have another Catholic POTUS.

At least not a practicing, orthodox Catholic POTUS

 

[Mike_Dye]

With his continued rulings on the matters of Abortion and Same Sex Marriage he has been completely out of step with the Catholic teachings on these subjects.

Also with the recent Supreme Court ruling on legalizing Same Sex Marriage throughout America this has essentially destroyed the Traditional Meaning of Marriage which he voted in favor of. This is surly more than enough reason to support him being excommunicated.

I’m just astonished how much Catholics lawmakers can go so far away from Church teaching and still claim to be Catholic.

I don’t know if he should be excommunicated, that is between him and his bishop. I do believe that he should be impeached. That is the only recourse that the Constitution permits to remove a Supreme Court Justice that is unworthy to serve in that capacity.

 

[kozlosap]

A Justice of the United States Supreme Court should be impeached if he uses anything but his reading and understanding of the Constitution in forging a decision. As far as the presidency is concerned, Romney was electable, and I would venture a guess that most Americans are more comfortable with Catholics than they are with LDS members.

 

[sallybutler]

In Muslim countries, most judges will not stray from Islamic teaching.

Thank God I don’t live in a Muslim country then. I don’t want Sharia Law or a Christian version of it here in the USA.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Thank God I don’t live in a Muslim country then. I don’t want Sharia Law or a Christian version of it here in the USA.

I don’t see a lot of difference, we allow 12 unelected people to illegally dictate the law of the land. They disregard the Constitution and do anything they like. The sad part is Americans are too lazy or too indifferent to care. Let’s face it, the judges on “American Idol” are the only judges most Americans are concerned with.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I don’t see a lot of difference, we allow 12 unelected people to illegally dictate the law of the land. They disregard the Constitution and do anything they like. The sad part is Americans are too lazy or too indifferent to care. Let’s face it, the judges on “American Idol” are the only judges most Americans are concerned with.

What court are you referring to? There are only 9 supreme court justices.