Chris Hitchens on "Catholic Justice"

I love reading Christopher Hitchens.  So, I just grin and bear it when he directs his quite potent rhetorical venom at folks I like, like Churchill, JP II, and Mother Teresa.  Here is an essay, on Slate, where he urges readers to "quit tip-toeing around John Roberts' faith."  In a nutshell, he tells people to stop pretending to be so shocked-and-chargrined by questions about Roberts' Catholicism -- or Catholicism generally -- and to face up to the fact that it is perfectly reasonable to worry about the Catholicism of public officials and the influence of Catholicism in public life because, well, Catholicism is worrisome.  He writes:

Why should this question [i.e., about the possibility of a conflict between a judge's legal duties and his or her faith] be asked only of Catholics? Well, that's easy. The Roman Catholic Church claims the right to legislate on morals for all its members and to excommunicate them if they don't conform. [RG:  Don't most religions, and most associations of any kind for that matter, claim pretty much the same "right"?]  The church is also a foreign state, which has diplomatic relations with Washington. In the very recent past, this church and this state gave asylum to Cardinal Bernard Law, who should have been indicted for his role in the systematic rape and torture of thousands of American children. . . .

[Q]uite apart from the scandalous obstruction of American justice in which the church took part in the matter of Cardinal Law, we have increasingly firm papal dogmas on two issues that are bound to come before the court: abortion and the teaching of Darwin in schools. So, please do not accuse me of suggesting a "dual loyalty" among American Catholics.  It is their own church, and its conduct and its teachings, that raise this question.  [RG:  Again, it is simply not clear why the possibility of exclusion from the Catholic Church and its sacraments is treated so differently by Hitchens, in terms of its possible corrupting influence on a judge's deliberations, than would be the possibility of exclusion from any other association, institution, or relationship.] . . .

If Roberts is confirmed there will be quite a bloc of Catholics on the court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are strong in the faith. Is it kosher to mention these things? The Constitution rightly forbids any religious test for public office, but what happens when a religious affiliation conflicts with a judge's oath to uphold the Constitution?  [RG:  Well, this is pretty easy, isn't it?  If anything "conflicts with a judge's oath to uphold the Constitution," then we have trouble, right?  But there is no reason to think, or even to suspect, that Roberts's "religious affiliation" conflicts with his "oath to uphold the Constitution."  Nothing in Catholicism precludes Roberts from taking the following (perfectly reasonable) course:  (a) Upholding the Constitution by interpreting and applying, fairly and objectively, the laws, treaties, and Constitution of the United States, and (b) recusing himself or resigning, if necessary to avoid culpable cooperation with evil.]

Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Rick