The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


Catholic group has “grave concerns” about Kagan

posted by jmcgee

The president’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court is already being met with criticism from one Catholic group:

Today Catholic Families for America, one of the largest groups of lay Catholics in the country, announced its opposition to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing “grave concerns” about her promotion of same-sex “marriage” and abortion, as well as a “dangerous internationalism” that has become fashionable among leftist jurists.

To galvanize citizens’ concerns, particularly those of Catholic voters, CFA has initiated a nationwide petition that it will forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The petition can be signed here.

“By nominating Miss Kagan to the Supreme Court, the president continues to demonstrate a brass-knuckles, Chicago-mobster mentality toward unifying our nation,” said Dr. Kevin Roberts, executive director of CFA. “Naming someone who has been so actively hostile to traditional marriage and to the unborn lays bare the president’s pro-abortion, anti-family agenda, in spite of what he says to the contrary.”

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are also raising concerns:

“Elena Kagan has no judicial record from which to determine her position on Roe v. Wade, but she has publicly criticized the 1991 Supreme Court ruling to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to restrict funding from groups that performed or promoted abortion, and has also criticized crisis pregnancy centers,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life political action group Susan B. Anthony List.

“Additionally, President Obama has said he prefers a Supreme Court nominee who would take a special interest in ‘women’s rights’–a barely masked euphemism for abortion rights,” Dannenfelser noted. “Through the judicial confirmation process the American people must know where Elena Kagan stands on the abortion issue, and it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to find out.”

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life similarly criticized the move, saying on Monday that “Elena Kagan has strong ties to abortion-advocacy organizations and expressed admiration for activist judges who have worked to advance social policy rather than to impartially interpret the law.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(13)
post a comment
Scott

posted May 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm


Did anyone notice the google ad that has “confirm Elena Kagan” Tell the Senate to act fairly and swiftly onm the presidents nominee. It does say ads by google but looks like a link from the article. Sneaky Sneaky



report abuse
 

Lorenzo

posted May 10, 2010 at 6:51 pm


Great Article — and my cheers and admiration to the Catholic Families for America. Sadly, they represent the small minority of Catholics which are conservative. The vast majority of Jews and Catholics alike are very liberal and thus support the same unBiblical anti-family policies of the radical left. Not only does Kagan support the radical gay agenda, she has openly opposed Historical, Biblical, Traditional marriage and opposes the DOMA Defense of Marriage ACT. American Family Assoc also exposed her as a far-left liberal. “Ms. Kagan has already tipped her hand on one of the most important issues that is likely to come before the Supreme Court. Overturning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will have a devastating impact on military morale, recruitment and retention. Plus, there will be no possibility of promotions for officers and chaplains who defend natural marriage as a matter of conscience.
Any officer with deeply held views about the immorality of homosexual behavior would have no future in Elena Kagan’s military. Our national security is far too important to become a plaything in the hands of judicial activists like Ms. Kagan would certainly be. Her nomination ought to be rejected on these grounds alone.
Plus, Ms. Kagan is part of the Department of Justice that filed a brief which declared “this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy [and] believes that it is discriminatory.”
Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of any healthy society. To put someone with such hostility to natural marriage and duly enacted law on the Supreme Court is an unacceptable threat to this profoundly important institution.



report abuse
 

Holly Hansen

posted May 10, 2010 at 7:44 pm


As they say in Yiddish “Oy Vey” !!!!



report abuse
 

roman crusader

posted May 10, 2010 at 8:24 pm


What a sad state of affairs.



report abuse
 

ron chandonia

posted May 10, 2010 at 9:12 pm


It was obvious that the president was not going to appoint a judicial conservative, nor was he elected to do that. But I had high hopes that he might appoint the retired chief justice of the GA Supreme Court, Leah Ward Sears, an African-American Democrat who has devoted herself to promoting family life as a social good. I suspect her name was only floated again to distract those of us who worry about the harm our court system is doing to normal family life in this country.



report abuse
 

MItchell

posted May 10, 2010 at 10:47 pm


Dear Lorenzo:
I am curious how much time you have spent in the US Military. If you have served, please tell us how many homosexuals served along side you and what thier roles were. I am not a homosexual and I am not defending the homosexual lifestyle but I am curious about your prospective.
Personally I have served in 2 branches of the military as an enlisted and in the officer corps. I have met homosexuals from Col O-6 to Airmen E-1. Some of them were excellent service members. Many homosexuals have died in the service of this country. While serving everyone knew they were homosexuals but we all did our job as professional soldiers, sailors and airmen.
I disagree with your comments about most Catholics being “very liberal and thus support the same unBiblical anti-family policies”.



report abuse
 

Deacon Joe

posted May 10, 2010 at 11:07 pm


I came across this piece on the Washington Post website. Interesting…I hadn’t realized the makeup of the Supreme Court.
THE QUESTION
No Protestants on the Court?
If Elena Kagan is confirmed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court would for the first time in its history be without a justice belonging to America’s largest religious affiliations — the Protestant traditions. If Kagan is confirmed, six of the justices will be Roman Catholic and three will be Jewish. Should the Supreme Court be more representative of America’s religious traditions? Does religion matter in the mix of experience and expertise that a president seeks in a Supreme Court nominee?
POSTED BY SALLY QUINN AND JON MEACHAM ON MAY 10, 2010 10:27 AM



report abuse
 

Mary

posted May 11, 2010 at 8:02 am


Sign Students for Life of America’s petition now against Obama pro-abortion Supreme Court pick: http://www.IOpposeKagan.com.



report abuse
 

The Eternal Homosexual

posted May 11, 2010 at 10:40 am


I find the following the translations are helpful. In organization titles replace the word “Family” with the word “Fascist.” In propaganda from such organizations, replace the phrase “family values” with “white culture.”



report abuse
 

Lynn

posted May 11, 2010 at 12:41 pm


Lorenzo writes: “Overturning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will have a devastating impact on military morale, recruitment and retention. Plus, there will be no possibility of promotions for officers and chaplains who defend natural marriage as a matter of conscience.
Any officer with deeply held views about the immorality of homosexual behavior would have no future in Elena Kagan’s military. Our national security is far too important to become a plaything in the hands of judicial activists like Ms. Kagan would certainly be. Her nomination ought to be rejected on these grounds alone.”
Would you please offer some facts in support of those assertions? I have served for many years, and the vast majority of those I encounter really have much bigger concerns than the sexuality of the next person over. Really. In fact, most of us could not imagine caring less about such things. It’s not important. As an officer, I really want not to have to know about anyone else’s sex life. If duty requires me to become familiar with it, I’m going to be annoyed enough by that fact, that the plumbing of the involved parties will be quite immaterial. You see, the only way I will ever have to pay attention will be because someone got into some trouble, meaning that they shouldn’t have been doing whatever they were doing at the time and in the place they were doing it. Or that the person they were doing it with was ineligible by virtue of age or marital status.
It won’t be Elena Kagen’s military, either. The Supreme Court has no command authority at all over the Department of Defense. That belongs to the President.
“Defending natural marriage as a matter of conscience” is not part of an officer’s duties, so there’s nothing in there to address. An officer is expected to pretty much keep his or her opinions on _most_ matters to him- or herself, anyway. You see, one of the things we agree to in the service is that our views on most matters simply don’t matter.



report abuse
 

Eric Bohn

posted May 11, 2010 at 5:40 pm


They found out what Sotomayer’s stance on abortion was and confirmed her anyway. The repubs are malleable on social issues. What matters is the fact that Kagan is a corporatist (which I’m sure Obama knows darn well, despite his announcement that he would nominate a candidate that would stand up for the little guy) and supports the war on terror. She’ll sail through just like Sotomayer did.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted May 13, 2010 at 9:44 pm


Ms. Kagan is an excellent nominee for the SCOTUS. She has excellent qualifications and that is all that matters. In reality no one can predict just what she will do on any case that comes before the court. The fact that she will make a total of 3 women on the court is even better.



report abuse
 

Marian

posted May 28, 2010 at 6:06 pm


I really don’t want to bash the Catholic church, because I fear the loss of access and the pain of deletion, but most of all because I think the Catholic church itself needs to give a second thought to what Catholic women are going to say when told that “women’s rights” is merely liberal code for “abortion.”



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.