Yesterday, the annual "Red Mass" was held in various Catholic churches and cathedrals across the country. This annual mass is held before the Supreme Court's fall session opens, and is intended to invoke the Holy Spirit's guidance in the administration of justice in the coming year. This is where Catholics come together to pray for holy rulings by the judiciary. I kid you not.
The Red Mass held in D.C. typically has a number of Supreme Court justices in attendance, by invitation from the Cardinal.
And often the officiating priest uses this opportunity to appeal for Catholic Church interests, such as anti-abortion rulings.
So how is this not a blatant violation of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State?
Aren't the Supreme Court Justices paid to base their rulings on the U.S. Constitution rather than the will of the Pope?
And how is this political mass not an insult to non-Christian justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who is Jewish)? And to non-Christian Americans in general?
Imagine the outrage if the Supreme Court justices were invited to attend a similar event annually at a mosque rather than a church -- and did so.
Mary,
ReplyDeleteI hate to insult ones intelligence but I do have to fill you in on a few things.
There was a jewish Supreme Court Justice who was there, Justice Stephen Breyer. Being a non-christian it does not appear that he was offended.
Second, these Supreme Court Justices along with others who attend the Red Mass attend as private individuals, not elected or appointed officials. Should Christian politicians not be able to attend regular service? You do know that they do attend regular service, and believe it or not the priest (minister) may talk about abortion and other teachings of the church.
Nice try and trying to find fault with something that brings no harm.
Mary,
ReplyDeleteI may be a year late in responding to your post, but as this year's Red Mass approaches, I thought it a good time to mention a few things. Your posting is based on fallacious understandings of the Church, the Red Mass, and the United States Constitution. While I am a white male catholic, and therefore biased, I assure you that what follows is purely factual.
First, the Catholic Church has shifted from an exclusive community to an inclusive community, under the auspices of Pope John Paul II. After Vatican II, the Church began testing the waters of tolerance, and finding them to its liking. The official position of the Catholic Church is now one of ecumenical ambition and interfaith cooperation. In short, we try not to exclude people.
Second, the Red Mass is not where "Catholics come together to pray for holy rulings by the judiciary." I kid you not. We pray instead for the Holy Spirit to give us the wisdom to be good lawyers, jurists, and scholars. We pray for God's help in our professional lives. The practice of law has great power over the lives of many people. A lot is at stake. We pray for the wisdom to do the right thing. I don't think any party to a suit would argue that his judge should not be wise.
Third, the First Amendment of the Constitution applies only to state action against citizens. It does not apply to Supreme Court Justices or any government official going to church in his/her personal time. In fact, the conduct of these judges is exactly what the Free Exercise clause of that Amendment is designed to protect. This is how Red Mass is "not a blatant violation" of the First Amendment.
It is worth noting that the Constitution did not mandate a separation of Church and State, the United States Supreme Court did. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, Thomas Jefferson unilaterally referred to the First Amendment as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. In 1878, in the case of Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court adopted the idea.
At Villanova University School of Law there is an annual celebration of Red Mass. The liturgy is always standing room only, and it is well-attended by non-Christians and even non-Catholics. There is no atmosphere of exclusion here. We would not be "outraged" if Supreme Court Justices chose to pray for wisdom in a mosque. Perhaps that is because, unlike so many human rights "activists", we actually believe in religious tolerance.
-Paul Whelan
Dear Mary
ReplyDeleteI will place you in my daily pray for you to find in your heart a love for your fellow man no matter what they believe or profess.