Anti-Catholicism: The last acceptable prejudice

Free World Class Education
FREE Catholic Classes

In case you haven't heard, anti-Catholicism is now in vogue. It has become the last acceptable prejudice of our time. Being against Jews or Blacks isn't nearly as fashionable or accepted as being against Catholics. Even pedophiles have their own ecelctic following with Jocelyn Elders supporting Judith Levine'slatest book, "Not Harmful to Children," which explores the "advantages" of children engaging in sex. And of course, homosexual men and women continue to gain popularity with the latest reality shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Boy Meets Boy." However, despite the notoriety these groups receive, in today's society, being Catholic just doesn't cut it. In fact, being Catholic will only ostracize you from the rest of society and damage your chances of professional advancement. You will be forever branded intolerant, narrow and judgemental.

Last Thursday's blocking of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor to the federal bench by Democrats on Capitol Hill is emblematic of the discrimination now routinely faced by many practicing Catholics. Mr. Pryor, who was nominated by President Bush to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was accused by Democrats of not holding "mainstream" views on abortion, gay rights, states' rights and civil rights. The Democrats charged that Mr. Pryor had a"narrow and extreme ideological agenda" that would pervert his rulings. Yet, the Democrats' rash conclusion of Mr. Pryor's rulings is unwarranted.

Free RCIA classes for Students and Catechists from Catholic Online School

Mr. Pryor's record clearly shows that he has not let his personal convictions interfere with his judicial duties. In a particular case, Mr. Pryor ordered state prosecutors in Alabama to follow the 2000 Supreme Court decision that invalidated most state partial-birth abortion statutes. Mr. Pryor insisted that the high court decision be implemented despite his personal conviction against partial-birth abortion.

Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, believes that Democrats are imposing "a religious litmus test" on judicial nominations. He notes that the majority of the judicial nominees that have been blocked or are expected to be blocked "are either Christian or devout members of a Christian faith."

Hence, Democrats are automatically discriminating against nominees depending on their religious convictions. This is unconstitutional. According to Arcticle VI of the Constitution, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust under the United States."

Democrats are clearly inviolation of this article, as has been seen by their blocking of pro-lifejudicial nominees, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. In fact, it appears that Democrats are explicitly discriminating against Mr.Pryor because of his faith. As a devout Catholic who is faithful to the Church's teachings on social issues, Mr. Pryor is obligated to be opposed to the barbaric practice of abortion. Yet, it is precisely his pro-life beliefs that Senate Democrats charge make him "unacceptable" to serve on the federal bench. This is anti-Catholic bigotry, and it is part of a larger campaign by liberals to systematically eradicate all remnants of religious faith and symbols from the public square.

As a trial judge, Mr. Pryor displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and later, when elected the state's chief judge, had a huge statue of the Ten Commandments placed before the court house. Higher courts told him to remove it, despite the history and tradition that accompanies the Ten Commandments. The judicial system is attempting to deny any person of faith from serving in public office.

Carl Anderson, supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus, rightly believes the Democrats' handling on judicial nominees"comes perilously close to suggesting that Catholics who faithfully adhere to the Church's teaching on abortion, and perhaps other public moral issues, are unfit to serve their country in the federal judiciary."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking member on the JudiciaryCommittee, denies the charge that Democrats are guilty of anti-Catholic bias. Mr. Leahy, who considers himself Catholic despite not adhering to the moral tenets of the Catholic Church on abortion and gay rights, was upset to be branded "anti-Christian."

We ask you, humbly, to help.

Hi readers, it seems you use Catholic Online a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but we need your help. If you have already donated, we sincerely thank you. We're not salespeople, but we depend on donations averaging $14.76 and fewer than 1% of readers give. If you donate just $5.00, the price of your coffee, Catholic Online School could keep thriving. Thank you. Help Now >

Democrats are also furious with a recent advertising campaign, run by conservative and Catholic groups that support Mr. Bush's judicial nominations. The ads show a closed courtroom door that bears the sign,"Catholics Need Not Apply." Another Catholic has also recently been nominated for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, Carolyn Kuhl, is also being opposed because she is faithful to Catholic teaching on the dignity of all human life. Her main opponent is Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat.

If Democrats continue to send the signal that no Catholics faithful to the teachings of the Church need apply for a seat on the federal bench, it would be a huge setback for equal opportunity and religious freedom in our country. Democrats should strike a new pose or else be very wary of who they call intolerant.

_______________________________

Loredana Vuoto
Editorial Writer
The Washington Times
Tel: 202-636-4867
Fax: 202-715-0037
lvuoto@washingtontimes.com