Just what the U.S. Supreme Court needed — another Roman Catholic. This would make six out of nine, for those keeping track.
So prepare for more headlines about Catholics taking over our nation’s legal discourse.
Not.
It does not appear that many people on the cultural and religious left are worried about today’s headlines, when it comes to fearing the rising tide of theocracy. In fact, I am having trouble — in the first wave of coverage — finding any information about the status of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s faith.
The word “Catholic” does not appear in the first report from the Washington Post, as one might expect. We get this, as a sample biography paragraph:
If confirmed, Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Supreme Court justice of Hispanic descent and only the third woman ever to sit on the panel. She grew up in a Bronx housing project, went on to Princeton University and Yale Law School, and has stirred controversy by saying that judges’ legal findings are informed by their own life experiences as well as their legal research.
Obama, too, has said jurists’ life experiences are a key part of their legal makeup, and he cited Sotomayor’s compelling personal story as one of the motivations for his choice.
There’s a similar gap in the early coverage over at The Politico and at The Los Angeles Times. Was I supposed to be searching for something other than “Catholic”? Is “Hispanic” now code language? Then again, the word “Catholic” is not in the early Washington Times report, either. Maybe the White House didn’t include this in her background materials (which is interesting). After all, we would have to ask what kind of Catholic she is. That could get complex.
Over at the Pontifications blog at Beliefnet.com, David Gibson is asking a blunt question about Sotomayor, who is divorced and has no children: Is she a Catholic? You could also put it this way, perhaps: Is she still a Catholic?
However, the New York Times should get some credit for at least hinting at what will surely be one of the most discussed elements of the judge’s nomination — which is a done deal, short of some personal scandal emerging.
As the various stories keep saying, Sotomayor has an “inspiring personal story.” The bible of American journalism, thus, included this small detail:
Judge Sotomayor’s father died when she was 9 years old, and her mother worked six-day weeks to earn enough money to send her and a brother to Catholic school. She got into Princeton University, where she once said she felt like “a visitor landing in an alien country,” but graduated summa cum laude.
Although she grew up in modest circumstances, the judge said, “I consider my life to be immeasurably rich.” … Judge Sotomayor has said her ethnicity and gender are important factors in serving on the bench, a point that could generate debate. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in a 2002 lecture.
So her life story will be a big part of the upcoming mini-debates about her appointment. Here is my question: If she was a pro-life woman, from a Hispanic background, do you think that the word “Catholic” would be appearing higher in these early (I repeat, EARLY) reports about her life and work?
Just saying.
 | Posted at 11:40 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (22) |
May 26, 2009, at 12:15 pm
Three thoughts:
I just went to google to do some research on her and as I started typing in the search field in firefox, guess what word was suggested right after her name? It is not Catholic but it was abortion. Given the emotional nova that explodes every time abortion is mentioned this should surprise most: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/is-sotomayor-an-abortion-centr.html Of course, the true believers don’t think there can be a centrist on abortion, but it’s an interesting review of her decisions on the topic.
Maybe there are so many Catholics on the Court because of how good the Jesuits have been using logical argument?
I also have to point out one potential trap: assuming that someone who attended a Catholic school is a Catholic or at least her or his parents were Catholic. Assuming she is or was a Catholic is a pretty decent assumption, but it’s not proof. I know non-Christians who attended a Catholic school because it was the best one around.
May 26, 2009, at 12:19 pm
Would anyone be so concerned if she was Jewish? Enough with worrying about the Catholics…geesh.
May 26, 2009, at 12:40 pm
I weighed the evidence here:
http://yrif.org/2009/05/26/is-sonia-sotomayor-a-catholic/
May 26, 2009, at 1:18 pm
OK, I think the point of this blog post is to ask the question: If she were pro-life, would the Manhattan media have pounced upon her Catholic-ness?
In other words, does the media use a curve that says that the further to the right you are, the higher up the mention of one’s religion gets?
May 26, 2009, at 1:29 pm
If she is a liberal Catholic, that would be controversial — especially in light of the VP and other appointments. It would almost be safer if she was a clear ex-Catholic/secularist.
May 26, 2009, at 1:58 pm
[…] Some ask what “kind” of Catholic is she? Here’s a look into that issue along with links to several news […]
May 26, 2009, at 2:18 pm
“Would anyone be so concerned if she was Jewish?”
Six of nine of any single persuasion, Jewish included, arguably ought to raise eyebrows.
May 26, 2009, at 3:01 pm
Tmatt,
Here I agree with you — she is safer off being a former Catholic than someone (ala Biden or Pelosi) openly defying church doctrine and her bishop.
OTOH, why would even ask such a question? You say there is no such thing as a “Catholic vote” so why would you ask if she’s a “Catholic”?
From the Beliefnet posting, she clearly fits your “Cultural Catholic” definition:
May 26, 2009, at 3:37 pm
Both El Diario/La Prensa in NY and Catholic News Service have
Jesuit Father Joseph O’Hare, the retired president of Fordham University who served with Sotomayor on a New York City campaign finance review council saying Sotomayor is a practicing Catholic.
May 26, 2009, at 4:19 pm
Is she a “Cultural” or “Sunday Morning” Catholic? A Jesuit priest isn’t usually the best character witness for the “The “sweats the details” Roman Catholic” category — which of course is the least likely.
By Tmatt’s typology, I still vote Cultural. She’s no swing voter.
May 26, 2009, at 4:40 pm
Just found this article by Douglas Kmiec - http://ncronline.org/news/people/judge-sotomayors-experience-trumps-all
May 26, 2009, at 5:34 pm
Really? I’m sure the Pope would like to know that, since he has appointed a number of them to key posts in the curia. Fr. Lombardi, for a quick example.
May 26, 2009, at 7:10 pm
On the question of religious identity and the Supreme Court, it does seem to me that a good case can be made that Benjamin Cardozo, a practicing Jew, was the first person of Hispanic descent (yes, I know there’s an argument about whether the Portuguese are Hispanic) to sit on the court. It shows how much ethnic or racial or religious identity is a social construct — not solely what you think you are, but what ‘they’ (whoever they are) think you are!
May 26, 2009, at 7:57 pm
If one went to Iberia and asked the Portuguese and Spanish if there were a difference, I imaging the response would be in the affirmative — and strong!
May 26, 2009, at 9:36 pm
I agree, Dave — but doesn’t that strengthen my assertion that identity is very much a social construct (which isn’t to take away from its validity or the truth behind it). Google Cardozo and you’ll see a spirited debate about him, his heritage and his self-identification with his heritage. Which takes nothing away from the emotions of Hispanics who feel a sense of pride today.
May 27, 2009, at 12:36 am
I’d say if her faith were even slightly a part of her public persona, that we’d be reading about it all over the place. No matter what her political slant. But it is not and has not been, going back to at least 1992 and the newspaper profiles done about her since then.
May 27, 2009, at 1:42 am
Nomenclature is a tough one for us Latinos/Hispanics. There are definite regional preferences in terms of what we call ourselves …
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of Hispanic:
1. Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
2. Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.
n.
1. A Spanish-speaking person.
2. A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent.
Since Portugal and Brazil are Portuguese-speaking countries, they don’t generally get included. Iberian or Ibero-American are more frequently used when including Portugal or Brazil respectively. And then there is the generic Latin American, which certainly includes Brazil, but not Portugal…
So, I’d have to say I’m with those who wouldn’t consider Cardozo the first “Hispanic” to sit on the court.
Just saying.
May 27, 2009, at 1:56 am
An addendum which is really an aside: I think language is the matrix of cultural identification. Did Cardozo’s father and or grandparents, et al speak Portuguese or Ladino primarily? What was he raised hearing, identifying with? If Portuguese, he probably self-identified as Portuguese first, Sephardic second. If Ladino, probably the opposite.
May 27, 2009, at 8:10 am
Terry, I promise after this I won’t hijack this post anymore on the question of ethnic/religious identity and Benjamin Cardozo (although it seems to align nicely with the question of whether Sonia Sotomayor’s ethnic and religous self-identification). I just found this interesting Cardozo story in Salon. Apparently this is a debate that’s been going on for years. I guess the fact that we have moved beyond a “Jewish” seat, and a “Catholic” seat and now just happen to have a majority of Catholics of whatever doctrinal bent serving on the Court is progress of a sort. Whatever is going on, the changing face of the Court signals the true end of WASP influence as a decisive factor in public life, does it not?
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2009/05/26/D98E71RO0_us_supreme_court_first_hispanic_/
May 27, 2009, at 7:46 pm
E.E. Evans wrote:
I’ll agree with Elizabeth. Cardozo’s family emigrated to England before the American revolution. My great-grandmother’s family came over the Mexican-California border in the late 1800s, and she spoke Spanish as her native language. So does that make me more “hispanic” than Cardozo? Or is Cardozo more “hispanic” because his patrilineal line preserved a recognizably Iberian surname?
Nationality and ethnicity are social constructs. When you try to pinpoint them, they end up looking rather arbitrary.
May 29, 2009, at 10:48 am
Of course. But that doesn’t keep one from finding “yes” or “no” answers to questions in the field.
June 11, 2009, at 10:09 am
[…] The new court’s makeup, whether or not Sotomayor is ultimately confirmed, is historic. As Terry Mattingly wrote at GetReligion, tongue planted firmly in cheek, “prepare for more headlines about Catholics taking over our […]