Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
Questioning a devout Catholic (or a devout Episcopalian*) about how her religious views do or do not affect how she considers legal or constitutional issues is not “attacking” a devout Catholic. Even when you oppose her confirmation to the bench based upon her faith-based answers and say something like “the dogma is strong with this one.” (Maybe it’s sexist to say that, since I don’t think a senator would phrase it the same way to a dude.)
I wouldn’t call myself a “devout” Catholic - or even a particularly good one - but my faith-informed opposition to the death penalty will definitely keep me off the state and federal benches in Podunk. I don’t think that most would consider that as an “attack” on my Catholicism.
*Ha! Episcopalianism is, as my (married) Episcopal priest friend once put it, has all the pageantry of Catholicism with none of the guilt.
|
I am a devout Catholic. Her crew, of course, the folks whose "intellectual" mantle she's now wearing (she was too young at the time) did a number on good Catholics like Father Drinan back in my youth. She's on the wrong side of a lot of intra-Church debates, and I'm glad their star is currently fading in the Church. The Good Lord works in mysterious ways.
But, yeah, the fact that I align more with this Pope and she more with the last doesn't make either of us anti-religious. If she were nominated, I expect we'd hear some of my good Catholic brothers and sisters in the Senate quoting the Pope a fair bit in her hearing.
