A Catholic court, but how Catholic? - Yahoo! News

Ok But this is not only a catholic issue.its not right to have a judge like this against the people and country she serves,We have enough judges trying to legislate from the bench without letting more in ,and no the white isnt the hate party,It;s why Obama got elected but this is way wrong and Obama should not be putting such people in power.

Where is the rest of the posts,they took them off!
Yahoo seems to be going to the left.

Devout, practising catholics should be looked at very closely because, inasmuch as they take orders from a foreign potentate (the pope), their loyalty to this country may be suspect. Recently, a catholic bishop told his parishioners that it was a "mortal sin" to vote for Barack Obama. Catholics were persecuted in Great Britain for the simple reason that they were more loyal to the pope than to the English monarch. There is far less to worry about with Protestants, Episcopalians, and Jews because they don't have a leader in some other country telling them what to do or think. So long as catholics can demonstrate satisfactorily that in matters of state their religion does not interfere with their thinking then they should be able to serve any position for which they are qualified. Examples: JFK & John Kerry.

I grew up Catholic, so I know how the religion works. Since she was divorced, the church will no longer recognize her as a Catholic. The only way around this is an annulment. Abortion is forbidden. Again, she does not fit in with being a Catholic. It's a tough faith, tow the line or you are out.

shallow: I guess by your statement of JFK and Kerry, that means that as long as a Catholic is liberal it's ok, then they are for America.

The Church is excited about Sotomayor because they believe
she is controllable by the Holy See. It's what America needs.

Thank you... Oh thank you, people, for voting in Obama to office
for four years. Isn't it wonderful what he is doing to America?

#1 - There are basic inalienable rights in this country - "LIFE". If you truly are a believer and a PRACTICING ROMAN CATHOLIC you CANNOT support any ABORTIVE PRACTICES - Supreme Court or not. We seem to think that being a Supreme Court Justice endows you with Moral Fortitude and the Wisdom given us by our Creator. No - the Supreme Court has made a mistake. No Catholic can in GOOD FAITH - GOOD FAITH being the key word here - can support ANY PARTY which is a party to ABORTION. It's an OXYMORON.

Ego te absolvo!!!

Apparently YAHOO! thinks politics and religion don't mix either!. By the way, Peggy, the President doesn't put ANYONE in power. Yes, the President nominates citizens to fill vacant positions, but it is up to the Congress to approve those nominees

Oh, by the way. The vast majority of catholic priests and bishops
and cardinals are Democrats. That is why they were the first to
institute rectory rendevous with boys

seems to me that folks like catholic bashing. is that because it is ok? if she were of another faith tradition would people back off? probably. prejudice is still everywhere unfortunately

I wonder if the protesters asked themselves what the republicans have done to stop abortion in the 22 years they've been in power since Roe v. Wade?

Ford - 2 years
Reagan - 8 years
HW Bush - 4 years
W Bush - 8 years

Each one put justices on the Supreme Court. Yet in 22 years (which is forever in politics), the republicans have done NOTHING to stop abortion.

It's because they use it to gain support and to raise money. If it were made illegal, they wouldn't have a rallying point.

It's one thing to flap your lips and say you're against something. It's another to actively work to stop it.

If you are against abortion, vote for the party who is stopping it by prevention, contraception, and education, etc...

I don't like abortion, but the Democrats have prevented MILLIONS more abortions than the Republicans have. They haven't stopped any.

The College of Bishops did not directly say to vote for McCain (I know, I read the pamphlet). They stated certain issues which pertain to the faith and said that to support a polititician that has a record of voting for legislation supporting mortal sin (murder being the primary clause), goes against your faith. Obama was just one of many elected officials voted in by phony Catholics in the last election as well as many refferendums such as assisted suicide. Nearly all Catholics that are serious about their faith and attend Mass regularly naturally vote Conservative as it encompasses our value system. Catholic liberals are Catholic in name only. Most never show up in Church except on Christmas and Easter. Apparently Sotomayor fit's that description.

We need to find out her views on important issues like depopulation of the US and imprisonment for not taking the new flu vaccine.

Forget Barack Obama. It has nothing to do with him. He's a figurehead for a huge political machine. The issue at hand is that -No they don't take orders from the POPE - what is wrong is that the party plank is such that it inconsistent with CATHOLIC TEACHING. There is a moral obligation by a Catholic to vote for a party - I don't care which - but it needs to be one which is consistent with the basic moral principles of the Catholic faith. Oh, that guy - Joe Biden - not a Catholic ----- can't be. He's part of a party that supports abortion. Don't get wrapped up in labels - "Catholic - they're really not!" Oh, John Kerry ---- another one --- go start your own party - dump the plank. Work for 'social justice'. Knock yourself out but don't ever say you're a Catholic and a Democrat. It's a disgrace to a once proud party which truly supported the common man.

As a Catholic I know that the Pope is only the leader of the church in church matters ONLY. He cannot change the laws of God. And Catholics are thinking people, To say that a Catholics loyalty to the country might be suspect because a pope leads the Catholic Church is ridiculous. John Paul the 2nd was a great humanitarian pope, we will just have to wait and see how this pope turns out. Hopefully he follows in John Pauls footsteps. But if he doesn't, it does not mean that as Catholics we are obliged to follow him blindly.

Once again a twist on truth and an incorrfect definition. A label Catholic does not mean you are one. In fact positions for choice and abortion or homosexuality negate a person as a Catholic by Cannon Law. Please dont buy the counter arguments read the Heresy Cannons. So professing is worthless if you do not walk the walk. The label no more then that and any Catholic who is truthful knows this as fact.

As a Catholic, I for one could care less about the religious make up of the court. All I care about is a justice abiding by the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. But I have to say, Sotomayer scares me with the public statements she has made in the past. She does have a agenda.

The article seemed to imply Souter was a protestant. He is actually an Anglican which is Catholic, but has reformed or protestant elements. An Anglican or Episcopalian is not the same as Roman Catholic, but perhaps could be more aptly referred to as an "Anglican Catholic." As an Episcopalian, I never think of myself as a protestant however much I respect them and owe parts of my tradition to the reformers. I posted this comment because so often Episcopalians or Anglicans are cast in print as "protestant." Well, yes and not. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to Souter as an Anglican. Actually there already is a lone protestant on the bench, as Souter is not one of two protestants, but an Anglican.

I've never known a Catholic, that wasn't a "cultural Catholic." Going to church doesn't make them different from the ones, who don't.

A Supreme Court Justice should be, in his/her official capacity, of no one religion, political party/philosophy or any other such. That person's job is very simple and straight forward! They are to interp. the law and uphold it. Period!
In the case of judge Sotomayer I have deep reservations based on CONSISTANT statements by her that lead me to beleive she has some very deep seated bias.

Ms. Zoll refers to "so much discrimination that US Catholics endured in the 20th century" in America....is she referring to the 18th and 19th centuries, when there actually WAS considerable anti-Catholic activities and feelings? There was still some latent prejudice against Catholics in the early 1960s when John Kennedy became our first Catholic president, but "discrimination?" Cite documentation.

Gee whiz, isn't she just a swell choice?

You don't say your CATHOLIC WHEN you DO NOT go to CHURCH it DOESN'T work that way in the CATHOLIC FAITH!. Sorry OBAMA/MEDIA MAYBE your getting that mixed up with OBAMA MUSLIM FAITH,these are just WORDS coming out of HER MOUTH just like OBAMA,NO ACTION JUST WORDS!

She's no Catholic. She's a brain-washed token Ivy League minority. She's more Green than Catholic. If she insists on being described as Catholic, let's call her a Pelosi Catholic - the kind of Catholic that has the arrogance to state that the church still isn't sure about when life begins so she can clear her conscience of any blood on her hands as she votes for pro-infanticide legislation. Don't worry liberals. She's a baby killer. You can all go back to watching American Idol.

What gets me is how rediculous people are. Everyone wants a fair voice in this country. If it were not for that fair voice Gays would not have a chance in hell. If not for that fair voice blacks would still be slaves. You people who claim that "Mexican" has anything to do with it are predjudice period. Not all Mexicans are Catholic. Not all Mexicans are poor. As a matter of fact even though this will cut my response short you should know that more than 40% of your TV and Radio stations are Mexican owned.

Talk about predjudice bastards. Claiming such things against Mexicansmerely because they are Mexicans is predjudise and yet they do your work that you are too lazy to do. making claims against Catholics is showing how you do not believe in equality. This country is built by people of every nation and that is what I love about it.

I don't really see an issue here... As stated in the article, there is already a "Catholic" majority on the court, and despite occasional hysterics from any of a number of groups with obvious agendas, there has never been any real threat to the current abortion laws. Regardless of the woman's faith or cultural background, does anyone really believe that a president with the liberal/progressive slant of Obama is going to appoint someone with an agenda so directly opposed to his own? The only people who have any stake in opposing Sotomayor's confirmation would be socially conservative Republicans. Anyone else is just blowing smoke.

The Roman Catholic Church "suffered" discrimination in early 20th Century America!!!! ?????
What kind of be-fuddled logic is this????

I dont recall burning any Catholics at the stake.
Nor do I recall any Americans launching Crusades that resulted in the Slaughter of Millions of fellow religionists....
am I missing something.
Almost all Catholics come to America from countries that are controlled and RUINED by the Roman Catholic Church.
Call me prejudiced......but try and deny that its true.
This country, the USA, is the ONLY tolerant country on the planet, and this stupid reporter tries to report that we are creating suffering for Roman Catholics in America,
TOTAL BULL CRAP

Interesting that the "White House" knows that she's not a member of a parish, and doesn't go to Church often. Probably part of the Obama litmus test.

As long as she doesn't "Hannitze" the restroom frequently she will do well.