The Black Madonna

Desecration

Michelle Malkin makes a great observation as she links to news that a vandal desecrated some crosses at the makeshift camp inhabited by Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star Mother protesting the war outside President Bush's Texas home: what's more profane, the vandalism or the feigned indignation by the people who thought this was art?

Spy call1.1

The Party of the Poor

In his Best of the Web column today, James Taranto seems to tangentially make a point about Christianity that even some Catholics find especially vexing to comprehend. He quotes from the New Testament, which former Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry has claimed to have read recently.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

Remember this passage when Democrats accuse Republicans of preferring to fight the Culture War rather than fight the "War on Poverty". One of those conflicts is permitted by the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, while the other is clearly unconstitutional to anyone who understands the concept of limited government.

And even a non-observant Jew can ponder that the New Testament might agree.

"...then the voter sins mortally."

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

The Catholic television network EWTN has a voter guide explaining the "Moral Duties Concerning Voting". It's an impressive statement of principle for pro-life voters, especially in this age when cardinals and candidates alike are telling Catholics they may have "proportionate reasons" to vote for a Democrat. (hat tip: Bettnet.com)

I can't help but wonder if the course of the nation could have changed in the 19th century, if twenty years before Lincoln the churches in America had been told they should vote against slavery with the same principles.

UPDATE: I just found several posts in our archives that I'd forgotten touch on the capital punishment angle. Note how much more hawkish EWTN seems to be on this issue, compared with Lopez and Dulles.

ANOTHER UPDATE: "Pro-choice agnostic" John Rosenberg makes a similar argument as I do regarding preantebellum morality. When people who would otherwise support you start showing the yellow caution flag over your political contortionism, you're in trouble. (Hat tip: Catholic[?] Kerry Watch)

I'll see impeachment and raise you HERESY

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

A Los Angeles canon lawyer has filed suit against John Kerry for heresy in ecclesiastical court.

Mr. Balestrieri said he filed the heresy charge - plus an additional complaint charging "harm" to himself as a result of Mr. Kerry's pronouncements on abortion and related issues - because canon law entitles Catholics to "possession of the faith unharmed."

"By spreading heresy, he is endangering not just mine by every Catholic's possession of the faith," he said.

"I am inviting all baptized Catholics who feel injured by Kerry to join the suit as third parties" by reading the document on the Web site and then sending a certified letter of agreement to the Boston Archdiocese.

"People are saying you can be pro-choice and be a good Christian, that it is not contrary to the faith to support aborted murder," Mr. Balestrieri said. "This is a life-threatening heresy."

"Bishops have had 31 years [since the Supreme Court made abortion an individual right] to do something on this matter, but they've done nothing," he said.

You can view the complaint and join the suit at De Fide.

(hat tip Mark Shea, good analysis by Fr. Rob Johansen)

One man stands by his faith

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I'm tempted to move to St. Louis.

The definition of confused

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Thinking the two current occupants looked a little lonely, I went looking for appropriate links to add to our new St. Blog's blogroll. I found a quite entertaining site by Kathy Shaidle, Relapsed Catholic.

At one point on her current front page, Kathy comments that she'd changed her position on abortion - but then fails to say from what to what. Naturally, I went diving through the archives to satisfy my curiosity, and came up with this gem. Make sure to read the linked commentaries by some of her friends - they're dated by the onward march of the campaign, but still quite insightful and entertaining.

Kerry's last Catholic leg

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

As I pointed out previously, John Kerry has defended his position on abortion and same-sex marriage by asking of his detractors, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?" As if this bait-and-switch weren't lame enough, I indicated at the time that Catholic theology is far from defining capital punishment as intrinsically evil.

Now at a timely moment, Kathryn Lopez at NRO has dredged up from the bowels of the Internet an April 2001 essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles that breaks down the issue in fascinating theological detail. (hat tip: Catholics for Bush)

Both Lopez and Dulles argue against the death penalty, even while acknowledging the authority of the State to enforce it. While neither goes to this level in the linked articles, both seem to make the case that a politician who favors the death penalty is far from disqualified from earning a Catholic's vote. In reading Dulles' arguments, I would go so far as to say a Catholic legislator is well within church doctrine to support the death penalty in a general sense, as long as he lobbies to build in safeguards to ensure it is applied fairly and to shy away from its use in all but the most egregious cases.

In an interesting detail I was unaware of until now, it appears even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops aren't as keen on denouncing capital punishment as I had been led to believe. Dulles points out in a footnote that there was more than a little dissent on the matter when they made their "statement" against the practice in 1980.

The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two–thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.

In any case, Dulles makes a strong stand that one's support for or against the death penalty - a criminal matter between the State and a capital defendant - clearly has no relation to one's support for or against the taking of an innocent life in abortion. The only question remains: when will our bishops stand up and defend the faith?

So... shall ye sew?

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I know I'm drifting off topic again, but this is getting aggravating for me. Besides, I don't have a Catholic-themed blog to vent on [Ed: Well... I do now], so I'll have to ask your indulgence while I get my frustrations out here. That said, it appears the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is tripping over his confirmation stole again.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

This was brought to my attention by Steve, who asked in confusion, "Since I'm not a Catholic, how bad is what he says here?" My answer: Where do I begin?

There are several facets to Mr. Kerry's outburst that are revealing: his attitude toward episcopal authority, and toward his fellow Catholics, and his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches us with regard to the various issues he discusses. But he also appears to have misunderstood what his handlers have told him... I mean, what his catechism teacher and his spiritual advisors have taught him... about recent church history. Most importantly however, Mr. Kerry has revealed that he has spent many years (at least) away from any kind of immersion in Catholic culture.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on matters that are not central to dogma. It's another to intentionally misrepresent Church teaching, or to completely ignore it. Perhaps Mr. Kerry just misunderstands the difference between the Church's position on capital punishment and what it teaches about the issues of abortion and homosexuality. But the fact remains: capital punishment is legal according to Catholic doctrine, but opposed by Catholic bishops in the United States for humanitarian (and not strictly doctrinal) reasons. Meanwhile, abortion and homosexual acts are forbidden by the Church and all its bishops according to two thousand years of guidance under the Bishop of Rome. It is generally permissible to disagree with the bishops of the United States in the former case, but not with the pope and all the bishops in the latter two.

It should also be pointed out that even in the case of capital punishment, one might risk a decision by one's bishop that his support of the practice in his case is so extreme as to risk excommunication. And if such a decision were reached by a bishop, he would counsel the transgressor and warn him of the possible consequences. Such a warning would require the individual to rethink his position or submit himself to such a judgment by the episcopal authority. I have to stress that a Catholic would believe that the authority of the bishop in this kind of situation is binding and a Catholic would have to accede or admit that he is no longer a part of the Church. If the individual does not reform, excommunication ensures that he is deprived of eternal salvation. There is no debate.

Here is where Mr. Kerry does not take proper care to prudently make his case in the context of a faithful Catholic. He not only flaunts his willful disregard of episcopal authority, but to distract attention from his own "potential" transgressions, he accuses other Catholics of not being faithful to "Catholic teaching".

At this point, there could be little that Mr. Kerry would say that would make me think he is a mainstream Catholic. As if rising to the occasion, he actually does himself more harm by misstating the name of a previous pope. Make no mistake, for all you non-Catholics out there: this was no simple slip of the tongue. It is simply impossible for an adult Catholic to confuse "Pius the Twelfth" and "John the Twenty-Third". (I spell them out on purpose - say them out loud and try to get yourself confused.) More importantly, Pius XII was a controversial figure, having held the papacy during World War II. But John XXIII - the pope who called a revolutionary Church Council (Vatican II) - is beloved by Catholics the world over, and was beatified by Pope John Paul II (beatification is the step below sainthood). I can only imagine that any confusing of the two can only be achieved through years of avoiding serious discussion of all things Catholic.

UP
DATE: James Taranto coincidentally imitates us.

"There's a problem with John Kerry"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we've outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.

Note my differentiation by saying: "practicing". A good deal of the "Catholic vote" is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren't Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere "symbol") is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren't Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there's a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.

Especially in America today, we Catholics don't spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.

Here's where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat's concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats' social positions - abortion primary among them - as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their "private beliefs". (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.

For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his "bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am," even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual "rights", and (of course) abortion.

* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O'Conor (1872).

EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.

"The Prince-As Bride"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Shelby Steele eloquently lays out the case against the homosexual agenda as a civil rights struggle...

The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none--white supremacy, black inferiority--for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly--not innocuously--different.

...right before he falls off the Cliffs of Insanity.

Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.

If there is a "true and firm difference", is it not at least possible that someone could disagree with the endorsement of the other side of that difference without "reactive prejudice"? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct (or rather, the complete lack of a moral and ethical rationale for it) is always prejudged "homophobic" sans psychotherapy? How is it that in a few short years the stigma has completely reversed itself, and opposition to this "lifestyle choice" is now the mental disorder, and not the pathology itself?

It's absolutely true that "racism projects a false difference in order to exploit". But it is equally true that the desire to impose an acceptance of homosexuality is just as much of a moral stricture as opposition to it. And stating otherwise is just as much of a false difference in order to exploit as is racism - only now the prejudice comes from those who want to deprive certain people of their religious freedom, and their right to cite their religious beliefs when they petition the government of a state to define its own standards.

From there, Steele continues to bounce his way down the cliffside:

The stigmatization of homosexuals is wrong and makes no contribution to the moral health of our society. I was never worried for my children because they grew up knowing a gay couple that lived across the street, or because several family friends were gay. They learned early what we all know: that homosexuality is as permanent a feature of the human condition as heterosexuality. Nothing is gained in denying this.

Nothing, of course, except the one thing in our overly licentious age that we are no longer allowed to regulate: morality itself.

UPDATE: A couple of letters to the Baltimore Sun speak clearly in support of my position. As Mik Megary points out:

The majority of Americans are against homosexual marriage. They make a moral statement that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our laws reflect these morals, as all our laws reflect our morals....

But this is unacceptable to some homosexuals. They want to be labeled as "married," as if that will force the rest of society to accept their actions as morally right....

(N)o right exists for all behavior to be morally accepted by society....

The struggle of a people to be accepted for who they are is just not the same as the effort by a people to be justified in what they do. (my emphasis - Chris)

(I should openly disclose my Dowdification^® of Mr. Megary, who in several places not noted above accepts the notion of civil unions. My editing in no way is meant to detract from his opinion or embolden my own (civil unions are not a concession I feel is desirable or necessary). His drift into that part of the discussion simply detracted from the central issue we've been discussing, IMHO.)

Trifecta, Part III

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I had meant, in Part III, to link to a decisive op-ed piece describing the failure of legislatures of the various states to impose their will - and ultimately, the will of the people - over the objections of an unelected clique known affectionately as "the court system". Unfortunately, I lost track of the link, and you get Howard Fineman instead.

The president isn't the only Bush working the Red State voters hard on cultural issues. His brother is, too. In Florida, at Gov. Jeb Bush's urging, the Legislature empowered him to order the resumption of tube feeding to a severely brain-damaged woman named Terri Schiavo, who had been in a vegetative state for 13 years. The governor sided against Schiavo's husband and with her parents, who wanted her kept alive. More important, Bush sided with anti-euthanasia forces, who share many ties and sympathies with those who oppose abortion.

As a family, the Bushes are making a political and moral statement: We are for the sanctity of life, as the Catholic Church defines it, and against legal powers that would extinguish it. (Except in the case of the death penalty, which the church also opposes.)

If it sounds like a Holy War at home it is, and the Bushes are hoping that red is the color not just of blood but of victory.

I don't have much to say to Howard, except that I think he hasn't quite whitewashed all the disgust out of his "journalism", and he's treading quite close to anti-papism. And I'm not surprised by either.

Trifecta, Part II

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Now we turn - merely as an interlude, of course - to the heart of the matter. Daniel Henninger lays out for us a scene very reminiscent of the last time the Supreme Court made a judgment over the worth of a human soul.

The men who made the American Constitution understood that nothing in the pristine vapors of their nation was so special or unique as to ensure that Jack would never despise the opinions of Tom--and more than anything would like to shut Tom up, for starters. It is clear in the Federalist Papers that the Founders, above all, tried to reduce the destruction often done to civil life by political factions. I don't know that James Madison is spinning in his grave over the factionalism washing through U.S. politics, but surely he is heaving heavy sighs.

Of course, there are also differences. In 1860, the problem had permeated all facets of the two very different cultures that then existed in our country. The problem was resident in our homes, our fields, and our legislatures. Nowadays, it simply exists in our courts, where most people assume they have no rights other than those that are argued by a high-priced lawyer, or adjudicated by a federal judge.

I think many people who don't get paid for waging politics are becoming quite frustrated with dysfunctional legislatures that are now polarized--as in Congress or in California--essentially along the cultural faultlines created by 30 years of allowing judges to pre-empt the broader community's ability to discover, or re-examine, its social beliefs. These legislators have become little more than clerks to judges and the complainants in their courts--the law as not much more than a brief. When this happens, citizens lose their status as voters or electors and become mere courtroom spectators. How can this be good?

The question is, will Americans continue to allow this "war" described by Mr. Henninger to rage in their courts? Or will they rise up in defense of their "public property rights"?

Trifecta, Part I

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Jacob Sullum surgically analyzes the differences (of which there were few) and similarities (of which there were many) between the ban on partial-birth abortion and (another) proposed ban on assault rifles.

Another difference between the two bans is that supporters of the abortion bill are more honest than the anti-gun activists about what they're trying to accomplish. President Bush, who is expected to sign the bill soon, called it "very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America." That "culture of life" presumably will include the recognition that D&E abortions are just as bad as D&X abortions. If killing a fetus is murder, doing it hidden from view does not make it OK.

During the debate over the bill, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) displayed a photograph of a 21-week-old fetus who had suffered from a birth defect that was surgically corrected in the uterus. "Is little Samuel's hand the hand of a person," he asked, "or is it the hand of a piece of property?"

Sen. Brownback has entered the realm of abortion debate that is seldom tread upon - the contention that in order to rationalize the practice of abortion, one is not required to prove that a woman has a right to "privacy" (a word that does not appear in the Constitution) - one must merely reason that abortion cannot be regulated because the woman controls the property rights to her own womb. I find it ironic that the clause that guarantees this right ends with the phrase, "without just compensation".

As a result of this revelation, I suggest Congress pass a law declaring eminent domain (based on future income taxes) over every fetus in America, and which requires any woman unwilling to carry a child to term to accept a reasonable sum as "just compensation" for the purchase of the fetus by the federal government in lieu of an abortion. Upon delivery, the 13th Amendment would require the federal government to free the child of his indentured servitude, and since he was now a ward of the state, he could be offered for adoption or placed in appropriate foster care.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Andrew Sullivan

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've always had a link to Andrew Sullivan because I've respected his work during the war, and I've actually enjoyed the occasional piece about gays and gay marriage, in that I could see what some who aren't strict conservatives are saying about such issues. But recently I haven't seen anything that makes me want to applaud him, and he's become very strident on gay issues again. (Not that he ever probably slowed down off the website, but a man only has so much time in the day to write and we've had more important things to talk about lately). And add to this, he's now gone to such an extreme as quoting the "slavery" section of the Catholic Encyclopedia to support his case. That just about sent me into fits, so I've decided to remove his link. It's not that I've suddenly gone anti-Sullivan. I just don't care to associate myself that closely with him at the moment and imply endorsement of his entire agenda.

[Ed.: I should note that Andrew Sullivan's heresy was one of the main reasons I began posting heavily Catholic content on The Black Republican. In that respect, I like to think of Andrew as the inspiration for Ex parte Fide in a similar way that Trent Lott was the inspiration for The Black Republican. The Lord works in mysterious ways.]

Gay-bashing, bad - Catholic-bashing, good

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I respect Andrew Sullivan for much of his writing, but the one thing where we differ wildly is obvious. And no, it's not proof of my homophobia, because many times I can discount his opinion as, well, his opinion, and be done with it. But he is so arrogantly sure he is right on matters of sex, he allows himself to be just as prejudiced against his opponents on the issue as he thinks they are of him.

Lately his number one enemy has been Rich Santorum. For example, in referring to the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas yesterday:

Sex in our culture — gay and straight and everything between — is no longer restricted to procreation. OK, there are some exceptions: Pennsylvania's GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, for example, who has six kids, apparently follows strict Catholic doctrine and abhors every nonprocreative sexual act.

Yes, he does. Is that so evil? While I can't say I "abhor" nonprocreative sex, I recognize that it is a sin, and my confessor has been forced to counsel me many times on this fact. Luckily, he and the Sacrament are still there for me when I fall prey to it.

Rick and I will pray for you, Andrew. Even if you think we're medieval for it.

The Rebellion Strikes Back

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Bill Buckley, the Old Man of the Grand Old Party, has taken the lectern, and has he got a funny story to tell...

Attorney General Pryor has run into the high risk of sassing critically situated senators. Not that there was ever any possibility that Sen. Feingold would vote to confirm the nomination of Pryor to the court of appeals. The 41-year-old Pryor had given the committee an answer to the big question. He said it with a straight face. Said it as matter-of-factly as if he had been asked by the short- order cook if he wanted his steak well-done. The great question:

"Mr. Pryor, you once said that you thought the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was `the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.' Do you still think that?"

"Oh yes," said Pryor.

When asked whether he thought that that decision had had moral consequences, he said, oh yes. He explained: "It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children."

Woo-hoo! There's more funnies from the Pryor hearings, so read the article. Gotta catch that rerun on C-SPAN2.

No Religious Test Call

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Call him "The Anti-Bork".

According to press reports, St. Thomas More Professor of Law Douglas W. Kmiec is being considered by President Bush for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. I don't know what possessed the man to dare even to suggest such a bold idea, but I find it highly exhilarating. You see, Mr. Kmiec isn't just a strict constructionist, he is unabashedly pro-life and (dare I even say this in public?) he understands the concept of natural law. Worst of all, Mr. Kmiec is one of those disgusting papists. But there is more! Mr. Kmiec has a paper trail, and he's got the gall to wave it in the face of the Left and shout them down.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal (probably the only newspaper daring enough to accept his column) Kmiec responds to his critics:

I will point out, however, that as Ms. Aron and her counterparts frame the question, it is irrelevant. Transparent moral beliefs and a gratitude for the gift of life may be measures of the quality of a person; they are not, however, the most appropriate or direct yardstick for sizing up a potential federal appellate judge.

Why not an appropriate yardstick? Because disqualifying a person from a federal post on the basis of his religious or moral beliefs cuts deeply against the guarantee of religious freedom secured in the First Amendment; it might even contravene the Article VI admonition that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And why not a direct yardstick? Because the job of a federal appellate judge is far more straightforward than these intractable issues--issues that, in the end, must be resolved as best we can within our many communities, informed less by top-down government edict than by bottom-up moral, religious and family belief.

Thanks to his catholicity, Kmiec presents a problem for the Democrats, especially now that he's defended himself. If he is nominated and they reject him, it may well prove his Religious Test argument. (A side bonus is this would further alienate Catholics from the Democratic Party.) It makes me wonder if Kmiec could them sue the government on the grounds that they are violating Article VI. This entire set-up may be just what's needed to break the Bork cycle we're in and return us to the days when a man's judicial temperment is the issue, and not his religion or ideology.