In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily barred New York from enforcing strict attendance limits on places of worship in areas designated coronavirus hot spots. The case on which it ruled is this: Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York.
Let's take a religion roll call first:
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, who is Catholic
The five justices who ruled in favor of the Diocese:
- Amy Coney Barrett--Catholic
- Brett Kavanaugh--Catholic
- Neil Gorsuch--Episcopelian (raised Catholic)
- Justices Samuel Alito--Catholic
- Clarence Thomas--Catholic
The four justices in the minority:
- John Roberts--Catholic
- Stephen Breyer--Jewish
- Elena Kagan--Jewish
- Sonia Sotomayor--Catholic
How did Cuomo react?
Cuomo described Wednesday's decision as a political statement. In his daily coronavirus briefing Thursday, he said, "Look, I'm a former altar boy, Catholic, Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school, Jesuits at college. So I fully respect religion and if there's a time in life when we need it, the time is now. But we want to make sure we keep people safe at the same time, and that's the balance we're trying to hit, especially in this holiday season."
So, which Catholic would you believe?
Why not check with the infallible Catholic, the Pope himself?
With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives. The exceptions have been some governments that shrugged off the painful evidence of mounting deaths, with inevitable, grievous consequences. But most governments acted responsibly, imposing strict measures to contain the outbreak.
Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions — as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
Hmmm ... let's remind ourselves what the Supreme Court's majority opinion noted:
The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty
The Pope, on the other hand, writes:
It is all too easy for some to take an idea — in this case, for example, personal freedom — and turn it into an ideology, creating a prism through which they judge everything.
I understand that a lawmaker who is Catholic doesn't take orders from the Pope on political issues. That was the very issue that JFK faced as the first serious Catholic candidate, and he made the separation of church and state very clear.
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.
I am glad that judges who happen to be Catholic don't take marching orders from the Pope. But, what about the science of public health that guides the political decisions on restrictions on churches during Covid? Why is Chief Justice Roberts' view not the majority opinion when he writes: "Only that our Constitution principally entrusts the safety and health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the states to guard and protect."
I suppose the Pope is not infallible even to justices who happen to be Catholic.
No comments:
Post a Comment