"Before every session, there's a Red Mass," Ginsburg said. "And the justices get invitations from the cardinal to attend that. And a good number of the justices show up every year. I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion."
Outrageously anti-abortion. Well.
[Necessary disclaimer: Yes, I'm aware that pro-life advocates sometimes express themselves so vehemently as to shroud the truth from those who might be persuadable. However, I don't picture Archbishop Wuerl as being such a person. ]
6 comments:
I rarely attend the Red Mass anymore because it's just too crowded, and it's doubly problematic with a small child. But when I have attended I have been heartened by the homilies - it's the one time of year it seems that American clerical leader show any kind of backbone. But they're hardly the kind of fire and brimstone stuff that Ginsburg makes them out to be.
As a side note, the funniest moment after a Red Mass was the mass demonstration that took place nearby. There were a group of pro-life activists driving through with some fairly, umm, stern placards and shouting very loudly about the evils of abortion. It struck me as slightly odd only because it seemed to me that they were displaying a lot of angst towards people that were largely sympathetic to their cause. With the exception of Bryer, all of the Justices in attendance agreed with them. I appreciated their spirit, but just thought it perhaps a bit misplaced.
Came across an example of outrageously pro-abortion stance: National Review's Richard Brookhiser mentioned in his memoir that his wife is a single-issue voter for the pro-abortion candidate. Unbelievable.
Well, in this past election I was a single-issue voter: no one who supported or excused torture under any circumstances got my vote.
Different strokes, and all that.
Joel
Joel,
I don't think it's different strokes. You're quite in the right. Torture, like elective abortion, is an outrage against the dignity of the human person and is a line-in-the-sand issue.
I'm still waiting for a candidate who isn't gung-ho about execution. The Ds are just as quick as the Rs to assure voters that 'early and often' is their stance on capital punishment. I still haven't recovered from Andy Young's 1990* "mad dogs" comment as he saw the light and converted to the side of eye for an eye, in the same sort of odd yet politically expedient way that certain pro-life politicians discovered the wonders of abortion on demand upon reaching the national level of the D party.
The Ds are likewise beginning to dash my hopes on the torture issue. Anybody, anywhere, interested in treating other human beings as ends rather than as means?
*I have high hopes for his retraction any day now.
Joel,
So you voted for McCain too? That makes two of us, anyway.
I give Obama 1/2 credit so far. On the one hand, he has ended the practice of torture: no one in US custody is being tortured any longer. On the other hand, he has not done enough to bring to justice the torturers of the Bush administration - indeed, he has gone to inexcusable lengths to cover up their crimes (see ref: al Rabiah).
I made the right choice in the last election (McCain was just fine with torture, as long as it wasn't active-duty military who were doing it), but I must now conclude that there weren't any really good choices in the election. Obama was the lesser of two evils.
*sigh*
Joel
Post a Comment