It’s official. Judge Sonia Maria Sotomayor is a Catholic, or a “Catholic,” or something like that. Maybe.
I mean, The New York Times has already included her in an info-graphic demonstrating the rising influence of Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court. Then again, its entry in the probing-the-judge’s roots contest makes this observation about her childhood:
Roman Catholic schools of that era were embraced by many working-class Puerto Rican parents who saw the public schools as too rowdy and dangerous. The Sotomayor family, which is Catholic, was among them. Judge Sotomayor attended Cardinal Spellman High School in the Northeast Bronx, which opened in 1959 and earned a reputation as a school for high achievers. She graduated as valedictorian in 1972.
So her “family” is Catholic. Thus, it may be assumed, the judge attends church attends family events that involve the church? This would fit most scholars’ definition of a “cultural” Catholic.
Whatever the reality is, her faith is clearly not in President Barack Obama’s talking points. It might pay to keep your eyes here and here in the days ahead.
Over at the Los Angeles Times, this is all that we get:
Her parents had arrived in New York from Puerto Rico during World War II, and Sotomayor had grown up in a close-knit world where Spanish was the spoken language. She didn’t grow comfortable with English until after her father’s death.
By then, her mother, Celina, a nurse at a methadone clinic, was working day and night on a mission to send Sotomayor and her brother, Juan, now a doctor, to a private Catholic high school in the Bronx. “Sonia’s mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood,” Obama noted.
In the wake of the University of Notre Dame drama, there must be some reason for this silence on the Catholic issue. Over at Time’s “Swampland” bog, evangelical-Democrat activist Amy Sullivan has a logical explanation. The key is this Vatican discussion of a quote from Pope Benedict XVI:
His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.
Sullivan notes that this could put the White House on yet another collision course with Rome:
While it will be very difficult for Sotomayor’s opponents to characterize her as someone who is hostile to religion, her own faith could become an issue. It’s not yet clear if she is a practicing Catholic. But if she is, that would not only bring the total number of Catholic justices on the Court to six, it would also undoubtedly make her the latest target of those who believe that Catholic politicians and judges must oppose abortion rights (see previously: John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius).
Ah. She is Obama’s kind of Catholic. The question for the press is whether to dig into this story now, or wait for official word from on high (a large white building here in Washington, D.C.) that this religion ghost is relevant.
Stay tuned.
PERSONAL NOTE: I am out the door to Kiev, where I am speaking to a group of Ukrainian journalists about religion, news and the Oxford Centre book “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion.” Wifi may be iffy, but I will try to stay plugged in, once I recover from the flight.
Photo: From White House press office.
 | Posted at 9:08 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (13) |
May 27, 2009, at 9:41 am
Have a safe trip.
May 27, 2009, at 10:54 am
We at the Washington Times ran a 30-inch story on the same topic: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/the-catholic-majority/
May 27, 2009, at 11:57 am
OK! The cat, Terry, is away. Time for us mice to have a party. Have a safe trip, Terry. The Sotomayor story is truly tasty catnip for media cats to bat around and chew on.
What is not often discussed, if ever, is whether or not any of the various Pope’s pronouncements on abortion were done ex cathedra. I’m not a Catholic, but what I’ve read suggests that disagreeing with an ex cathedra pronouncement is an entirely different thing for a Catholic compared to a regular statement.
May 27, 2009, at 12:04 pm
The question nobody in the MSM seems to have addressed is, into which of tmatt’s classification of Catholics do the other Catholic members of the SCOTUS fall?
Have a safe flight, Terry.
May 27, 2009, at 4:18 pm
Maybe she’s not all that Catholic.
May 27, 2009, at 4:38 pm
Sotomayor said something along the lines of “I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.”
I am not well-versed in legal-speak. How much does this deny a Catholic understanding of natural law? (I think Scalia is on record as stating that Catholics made better judges than Protestants because of this understanding.) If a denial, how does this denial help us understand what kind of Catholic she is?
May 27, 2009, at 6:28 pm
Brian wrote:
“Rule of Law” and “natural law” are two different issues.
“Rule of law” means that the executive and the courts enforce the law of the land consistently; that a citizen can determine the legal result of his or her actions by referring to statutes and published court decisions. Rule of law doesn’t concern the substance of the law.
“Natural law” is a theory of how we derive the law, of what the law should be. It’s very much concerned with the substance of the law.
There isn’t necessarily a conflict between the two. Arguably, natural law requires the rule of law; otherwise, the law can’t accomplish its purpose of ordered society. However, conflict is possible: if a law is substantively unjust according to natural law, applying that law consistently doesn’t make it any more just, and rule of law perpetuates injustice.
Translating Sotomayor’s comment into non-legalese: “I firmly believe that the consistent enforcement and application of the law is necessary for the protection of all our rights.” It’s really not a controversial statement, and doesn’t address Catholic natural law theory. Justice Scalia would probably agree with Sotomayor’s comment. If media reports this as controversial, they don’t get either rule of law or natural law.
May 27, 2009, at 8:00 pm
Once again, a poor translation has led to many misunderstanding a Church position. A Catholic judge has no duty to hew to Catholic doctrine in their juris prudence.
May 27, 2009, at 10:52 pm
I have hope that she may be a typical Latina politically.
That is, liberal on a long list of things, but conservative with regard to certain social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage.
In short, I hope she could be an anti-Souter.
May 28, 2009, at 1:05 am
Thanks, Dale. I guess I read too much into the word “foundation.”
May 28, 2009, at 1:13 am
Here’s a bit more on “rule of law”.
A practicle application of “rule of law”:
If a country respects the rule of lae, you can count on contracts being enforced or fair compensatory damages. This makes a huge difference in how business is conducted and why some people are so upset recently about investors being told they are greedy when they want their property rights honored. This is especially true when the investor is a pension plan with a fiduciary duty to the pensioners or a corporation with a similar duty to their shareholders. If a secured creditor can’t count on being paid first in bankruptcy, this will alter that creditor’s behavior in dealings with the customers who come later.
“Rule of law” is essential to an ordered society. It’s the growing presence of “rule of law” in China and India that is attracting investors and trading partners - before then, it was too risky.
“Rule of law” is the opposite of “rule by men” where certain people are favored regardless of the laws on the books; it makes society stable. And it prevents arbitrariness in the criminal system - or at least it is much fairer than rule by the whims of the lord of the manor or the mob, for example.
May 28, 2009, at 1:17 am
Jerry:
There have been very, very few ex cathedra statements. But Catholics have other sources - Scripture and what logically flows from Scripture; Tradition (the teachings handed down from the time of the Apostles - AKA deposit of faith), Councils, etc. Just like sins are not all equivalent (much like misdemeanors and felonies of various seriousness), statements and interviews and homilies and writings of Popes and bishops have varying degrees of importance.
The Jews have Torah and the Mishna and favorite admired writers of varying importance, etc. Catholics are not alone in having a complicated system of beliefs and rules that grow and deepen over time. Some items are core beliefs and most others are at various points further down the scale, although not unimportant.
May 28, 2009, at 7:46 am
What Julia said. I would add that there is no need for ex cathedra statements on abortion. Abortion is covered quite well in the 1st- and 2nd-Century documents collectively known as “the Church Fathers.” For example, Chapter 2 of the Didache categorically says that abortion is a grave sin, mentioned in the same breath as infanticide. Both were common in the Empire, though I gather that infanticide was preferred because it was safer for the mother.