Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

"The Moral and Legal Obligations of Catholic Judges"

Well, this piece, by Frank-Paul Sampino, at Dappled Things, is certainly right at the heart of many conversations we've had at MOJ over the years.  Here is Sampino's central claim (which he elaborates and defends in the essay):

Generally speaking, a Catholic judge’s moral obligation is no more, and no less, than to apply the civil law as he understands it, regardless of the outcome of particular cases. I maintain that a Catholic judge need not recuse himself, or resign, or stretch the law to achieve a morally acceptable outcome. With rare exceptions, he may simply decide the case as he believes the appropriate civil laws require.

This is, I think, pretty much my view, too.  I am not quite on board, though, here:

To expect judges to bring political and moral considerations to bear on their interpretations of the law is to undermine the whole purpose of judging.

This is not necessarily true.  There will, it seems to me, sometimes be "legal" questions presented to judges that require -- because they do, in fact, invite and authorize -- judges to bring "moral considerations" to bear.

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/02/the-moral-and-legal-obligations-of-catholic-judges.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e20148c83d76e9970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The Moral and Legal Obligations of Catholic Judges" :

Comments


                                                        Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"There will, it seems to me, sometimes be "legal" questions presented to judges that require -- because they do, in fact, invite and authorize -- judges to bring "moral considerations" to bear." Wouldn't this be particularly true in courts of last resort? A large part of what a supreme court does is based on policy, right?