Kmiec, Cuomo, and Russert

Tim Russert did a segment on the Roberts / Catholic / etc. question this morning on Meet the Press.  Professor Doug Kmiec and former Govenor Mario Cuomo were the guests.  Here is a link the transcript.  We've talked a lot about this matter, I know.  Still, I was struck by two things:

First, Governor Cuomo's understanding of what the Church does or proposes when it teaches seems strange to me.  Several times, he seemed to reduce the Church's moral teachings to things "the pope says."  For example, he said:

Everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges.  So why not ask them:  "Will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution?  Will you start by saying, `I'm not going to support the Constitution if my pope tells me not to'?"

And:

Here, ironically, if you want to say religious test, the question for Judge Roberts is, "Are you going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the church says that, you will do it no matter what?

And:

If people believe that there is a possibility that as a Catholic when you go on the bench or you go into the Congress or wherever as a public official, you would put your Catholic church teachings before the Constitution, then they will not know where you're going to be, because the Catholic church can come up with a teaching any day.  They can change teachings, and they do.

I wish the point had been made that the Church's teaching on abortion -- whatever its merits -- is not merely an "ipsedixitism" (assuming that is a word). 

Next, I came to think, watching the segment, that the "back story" to the whole Roberts and Catholicism business is the lingering anger of many Catholics over the Kerry and Communion business.  That is, Governor Cuomo -- like E.J. Dionne and Michael McGough in their recent op-eds -- seemed in the interview with Russert almost eager for Roberts to say, to the Senate, that he would, although Catholic, comply with his oath to uphold the Constitution, because -- in Cuomo's view -- this will create a "political difficulty" for those Republicans who might have enjoyed it when some bishops were publicly critical of abortion-rights-supporting candidates and politicians.  Here is Governor Cuomo: 

Now, practically and trying to be constructive, the question has to be answered.  What you're really saying to the judge is, "Look, judge, just tell us whether there's anything about you, your religion or anything else, that will make you defy your oath to put the Constitution first."  His answer is clear.  He can only say one thing.  "No.  There is nothing."  "Not even your religion?"  "Not even my religion."  OK.  The reason they're trying to duck that issue is that then gets them into trouble with all those conservative Republicans, politicians and clerics who have attacked Democrats like Kennedy, like Ted Kennedy, like Gerry Ferraro, like John Kerry in the last campaign and said, "Oh, if you're religious," you know, "then you've got to do what the church says or you're a hypocrite."  If Judge Roberts puts himself into that position, then the shoe is on the other foot politically.

Again, as Fr. Araujo and I have been discussing, I do not think an appellate judge passing on the validity, under the Constitution, of a particular regulation limiting abortion is in the same position as a candidate who says, "vote for me because I support and will increase access to legal abortion and will vote against or veto efforts to limit it."  Certainly, though, any criticism directed at abortion-rights-supporting Catholic politicians needs to be directed at Republicans no less than Democrats.

Rick

UPDATE:  I deleted a few sentences from the original version of this post, because readers called to my attention the possibility that I might be understood as questioning the sincerity of Governor Cuomo's statements that he is "personally pro-life."