No Catholics Need Apply

Polish Guy Wo Loves God said:

It is another obvious repression of Catholics in a Protestant country. I am, however, Glad that President Bush was courageous enough to appoint a Catholic, and a pro-lifer too.

Click to expand...

What’s the fastest way to make a Democrat angry? Call him
anti-Catholic.

That’s exactly what happened last week when the Committee for
Justice ran a controversial ad that pictured a closed courtroom door
with a sign on it that read, "Catholics need not apply." Referring to
the recent trend in the Senate to stall voting on Catholic nominees
to federal court positions, the ad implied that Democrats were
beginning to apply a religion test to those nominees, effectively
barring Catholics from federal benches.

The issue came to a head after a vote on Bill Pryor’s nomination in
the Senate Judiciary Committee was split exactly along party lines --
the Democrats being unanimously against him. But these same Democrats
-- some among them Catholic, by their own definition -- bristled at
the ad. They insisted that their hesitation had to do with Pryor’s
"deeply held beliefs" on issues like abortion and homosexuality,
something they said was entirely removed from his religion.

The fact that Pryor has an impeccable public record of upholding the
law on these issues doesn’t seem to make a difference. Nor does it
seem to make a difference that ANY faithful Catholic would still be
automatically excluded by these criteria, their privately held
beliefs trumping any public record, no matter how flawless.

Well, the argument over the ad rolls on, and Democrats continue to
cry "foul" about the charge of anti-Catholicism. But a lesser-known
Catholic nominee, Leon Holmes, might just prove that the charge of
anti-Catholicism could stick after all.

Now you may not have heard of Holmes before -- his nomination hasn’t
gotten as much press lately -- but he’s been nominated to serve as a
federal judge for eastern Arkansas. Holmes is a faithful Catholic
with orthodox positions on the family, but more importantly to his
nomination, he has an impressive legal career that has won him the
endorsement of the American Bar Association, recognition from his
hometown newspaper, a teaching position at the University of Arkansas
School of Law, and the praise of even those who disagree with him,
calling him a man "shot through with integrity."

Sounds like the perfect candidate. But once again, Democrats have
seized on Holmes’s deep faith as a reason to doubt that he would be
an impartial and fair judge. More than criticizing his antiabortion
stance, though, some Democrats have gone so far as to call him a
"misogynist" for his views on the mutual subjugation of husbands and
wives as taught in the Bible.

You see, Holmes and his wife wrote a short essay that was printed in
their diocesan newspaper on the traditional Church teachings about
the relationship between men and women, teachings that they call
"grand, elegant, and beautiful." The paper takes up such unpopular
topics as the male-only priesthood, the understanding of God as
"father," and the watering-down of the liturgy with gender-neutral
language.

Mr. and Mrs. Holmes also discussed the role of husbands and wives,
explaining that their relationship was to mirror the relationship of
Christ (male) and the Church (female), as we are taught in the Bible.
Just as the Church places herself under the care and guidance of
Christ, so too are wives to "submit" to their husbands’ care. In
addition, just as Christ laid down His life for the Church, husbands
are called to sacrifice everything for the good of their wives, whom
they must love and respect above all else.

This is what Catholics believe to be true -- and it isn’t just about
the relationship of men and women. It’s a larger sign for the
mystical relationship between Christ and His Church.

Now, it’s understandable that some people would misunderstand
Catholic teaching on this subject if it hadn’t been properly
explained to them. That’s the kind of misunderstanding that Mr. and
Mrs. Holmes tried to clear up by writing this piece.

But for Senators Schumer, Feinstein, and Durbin, this is misogyny,
end of story. And not only that: It is enough reason to bar him from
a seat on a federal bench.

Do you see what’s happening here? Holmes is being discriminated
against because of his faith. It doesn’t matter if others unfairly
misinterpret that faith, or even if Holmes’s personal beliefs don’t
interfere with his adherence to the law. Simply holding that belief
is enough to disqualify him.

Democrats can call it what they want, but this attack on Holmes goes
to the heart of his personal religious beliefs. Only by abandoning
them would they consider him fit to serve, and that’s a religious
test of the most obvious kind.

At least in Holmes’s case, this Catholic need not apply.

Click to expand...

Polish Guy Wo Loves God said:

It is another obvious repression of Catholics in a Protestant country. I am, however, Glad that President Bush was courageous enough to appoint a Catholic, and a pro-lifer too.

Click to expand...

Carly said:

I agree that this is not just a Catholic issue, in that a Protestant holding the same beliefs would probably not be confirmed either. But it is a Catholic issue in the sense that you can't be authentically Catholic and not hold these beliefs. Whereas, you could be a Protestant (Episcopalian, Methodist, etc) and support abortion "rights" and homosexuality.

In Christ,
Carly

Click to expand...

Auntie said:

Look, there are a lot of things Catholics and Protestants will always disagree on. But this is one of those issues where there is MUCH agreement. It's a shame that Catholics and Protestants can't come together and support each other on this issue and many others.

Click to expand...

lambslove said:

But you can't be a follower of Christ's teachings without acknowledging the sanctity of life, including one of these little ones. Not every "protestant" is a Christian in the sense of being a follower of Christ. They might have church membership or attendence, but that doesn't make them a Christian, anymore than a person who attends a Catholic church while disrespecting the teachings of the church can really be a Catholic. You have to put your faith into action and be in line with Christ's teachings, or it's not real faith.

Click to expand...

fragmentsofdreams said:

It doesn't appear to be a Catholic-Protestant issue. It looks like they would react the same way to a Protestant of equally strong belief.

Click to expand...