Since the sudden passing of Antonin Scalia, I’ve read countless tributes to what, by all appearances, was a life well lived. May he rest in peace.
Devout Catholic. Staunch Catholic. Champion of traditional Catholicism.
This is just a sampling of some of the phrases that are commonly being used to describe the late Supreme Court Justice.
Just as commonplace are such labels as the following:
Stalwart defender of the Constitution. Champion of the Constitution. Tireless advocate of Constitutional originalism.
This is understandable as to the eyes of many both sets of panegyrics appear to be true.
Objectively speaking, however, the very idea of “a staunch Catholic defender of the Constitution” is oxymoronic. It is rather like imagining that one can be a “late term abortionist healthcare provider” – the two are simply incompatible.
With that having been said, it is entirely conceivable that one might sincerely believe himself to be a “champion” of both Catholic tradition and the U.S. Constitution, and all indications are that Justice Scalia falls squarely into this category.
That, however, is not my concern.
To be very clear about my intentions in this article, I am in no way interested in examining the depth of Antonin Scalia’s devotion to the Catholic faith. I feel no need whatsoever to question it; in fact, I don’t doubt it in the least.
At the end of the day, this is an entirely subjective matter, however. As such, I am pleased to “leave out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.” (cf Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis)
What I am interested in doing is shining the light of truth on the relative Catholicity of his legacy vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and his support of the U.S. Constitution; especially given the degree to which so many (even among so-called “traditionalists,” aka Catholics) appear to be so thoroughly confused.
In one of his most recent public appearances, a talk given at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metarie, LA in early January, Justice Scalia addressed the Court’s application of the so-called “neutrality principle,” which presupposes that “the State must be neutral between religion and non-religion.”
According to Justice Scalia, there is nothing unconstitutional about the State favoring religion; e.g., via tax exemptions and other privileges.
“To tell you the truth, there is no place for that [the neutrality principle] in our constitutional tradition,” he said.
He went on to insist, “Don’t cram it [secularization] down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it.”
Justice Scalia, an American through-and-through, went on to say, however, that if the American people at some point decide they want to “impose” secularism on the United States, “I don’t have a problem with that as long as it is done democratically.”
Red flag number one…
As for what the Constitution that he labored to uphold does say, the Justice rightly maintained, “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another.”
Forget red flags: At this point, the traditional Catholic defender of the Constitution narrative crumbles entirely.
In his Encyclical, Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII cites Scripture and tradition at length in order to demonstrate the immutability of the following:
This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State …The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion. [cf Immortale Dei 36]
While this may strike many an American ear as strangely foreign, it is simply Catholic common sense; when rulers of State give equal treatment to both truth and falsehood, in particular as it concerns matters religious, they necessarily undermine the common good that they are duty bound to safeguard.
Speaking of those duties that are incumbent upon rulers of State, they are, according to sure Catholic doctrine, obligated to give “reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ … both in private and in public life” (cf Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas).
The Constitution of the United States, as Justice Scalia understood very well, forbids the exercise of this solemn duty on the part of her leaders to so honor Christ the King, the Source of all authority.
How then can a “champion of traditional Catholicism” take up the cause of defending said Constitution as a Supreme Court jurist?
Simple; he must suspend his devotion to the tenets of the Catholic faith in favor of Constitutional principles:
The Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work … There’s no such thing as a ‘Catholic judge’ … Just as there’s no ‘Catholic’ way to cook a hamburger. (Antonin Scalia, Address given at Villanova, Oct. 2007)
Having had this discussion in the past with “conservative” Catholic God-Bless-America types who seem to think of the Constitution as holy writ, I am well aware of the rejoinder that this invites:
But serving on the Court requires one to uphold the Constitution of the United States!
Indeed, it does, just as murdering human beings is required of the physician who “serves” in an abortion clinic, and the key point here is simply this:
Neither the physician, nor the jurist, is required to take up either position.
This brings me to the posthumous re-emergence of the photograph of Justice Scalia taken at President Obama’s January 2013 inauguration [above], wherein he is donning a hat replicating the one depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More [right].
The intended statement was immediately obvious to conservative American observers.
For instance, Matthew Schmitz at First Things wrote:
Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.
Economist Thomas Sowell made it pretty clear what he made of it in an article entitled, The Hat that Gave Obama the Finger.
This is nothing new; those who confuse the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for Catholic doctrine have been around for at least fifty years – ever since the Second Vatican Council enshrined John Courtney Murray’s arguments in Dignitatis Humanae.
The truth of the matter is, however, St. Thomas More would never have laid down his life in defense of such heterodox propositions! In fact, his martyrdom is precisely the opposite of the approach taken by Justice Scalia and others.
Upon being sworn into office, every Supreme Court jurist is required to take the following oath:
“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
NB: To what do those who so swear pledge their “true faith and allegiance”?
It’s the Constitution, and “without any mental reservation” at that – an affirmation clearly at odds with the Catholic faith. [For a more detailed treatment of the irreconcilable tension between the U.S. Constitution and immutable Catholic doctrine, see HERE.]
St. Thomas More, by contrast, when confronted with taking an oath that would require him to place his allegiance to the Crown above his Catholic faith, steadfastly refused; eventually resigning the office of Lord Chancellor.
Even this, however, was not enough to prevent his execution.
Antonin Scalia, for his part, is being described in certain places as a “Pre-Vatican II Catholic,” and in some ways it seems that he was. At the same time, he wasn’t exactly a “St. Thomas More Catholic” as it appears rather evident that he accepted the conciliar innovations with respect to religious liberty.
God knows Justice Scalia wasn’t the first person, nor will he be the last, to have his understanding of immutable Catholic principles corrupted by the Second Vatican Council, if indeed that be the case. Surely Our Blessed Lord is uniquely capable of sorting all of this out.
In any event, Antonin Scalia has always seemed to me to be an honorable man who, like the rest of us, lived at a time of great crisis in the Church, and I am sorry to see him pass.
Of all of the tributes to the man that I’ve read over the past few days, my favorite was written by Jeffrey Tucker, Justice Scalia’s Great Heart. I invite you to read this touching, semi-private glimpse into Justice Scalia’s character there.
At this, let us pray for the repose of Antonin Scalia’s soul, that he may dwell with St. Thomas More and all of the Martyrs and Saints in all eternity.
Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
Found with a pillow over his head and no autopsy ????
Since taking the oath to “support and defend the Constitution” is a requirement of all Federal office holders–including the President, Congressmen and Justices–is your position that no traditional Catholic should serve in these offices?
Dear Louie,
I think that good Catholic people who serve in government need to do the best they can with what they are given. Justice Scalia did just that. Of course , he knew the teaching about the Social Kingship of Christ ( and I’m sure agreed with it) but if he became a purist he would be off the court and replaced by a liberal who hates our faith. Our Good lord does expect the impossible from us and to be totally Catholic and a member of our government is simply not possible.
If Justice Scalia was given the choice of recognizing our president as head of the Church in America or losing his head, he would surely have gladly lost his head.
I believe that Justice Scalia head those words of Our Lord, which God willing, we will all hear upon death: Well done good and faithful servant…
I think the strange circumstances regarding Scalia’s death should be fully investigated. Also, Scalia may not have been another St. Thomas More, but America would be in a better place if more “Scalias” were on the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the world would be in a better place, if there were more Scalias in the Vatican. May God have mercy on his soul. May God have mercy on America!
My limited understanding is that the Church teaching evil can be tolerated for the sake of civil peace. Obviously the U.S. Constitution is a Masonic document and all lawyers as officers of court have to swear to uphold it. Does that mean no Catholics should be lawyers? How should a Catholic behave in a non Catholic majority country like America?
What an excellent post, Mr. Verrecchio. ——-
Completely respectful and kind to Justice Scalia without compromising Catholic truth.
That you should link back to the Anthony Kennedy post is entirely appropriate, also. It is one of the best explanations of the distinction we, as Catholics and Americans, must make between serving Christ our King and our country that I have ever read.
https://akacatholic.com/shoot_anthony_kennedy/
You are correct that we are all confused, but keep preaching about the Social Reign of Christ our King, and we sure to get it sooner or later.
——
Also, thank you for putting in the Amazon link. If you could somehow keep that on each post or have a link to it from your “media” or “free downloads” section across the top that would help those of us who are frequent Amazon customers to help you.
Yes, ock. Very strange!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php
The Catholic Church cannot teach evil under any circumstances. If any member of the Church ever does preach evil then he is obviously no longer a member of the Church and therefore no longer speaking for It, so the mere idea of the Church (as a teaching authority) spreading evil (heresy) is an impossibility. Personally speaking, I dont think any Catholic should ever be a lawyer, or a high ranking politician, in a country as morally bankrupt as this one is….it just makes no Catholic sense. I was the biggest patriot there was throughout my 20’s and 30’s….I was also a municipal police officer for over 20 years during that time….and then, in my early 40’s, I started to actually understand the Catholic Faith (even though I had always called myself a Catholic all throughout my life). Once you get to that point where you REALLY start to understand your Faith I dont see how you can ever be patriotic again.
Anyway, just my two cents.
‘Catholic’ became a brand under Roncalli, under Montini it became a brand that elevated Americanism above Christ. Under Wojtyla it progressed to become a brand that elevated demons, universalism, and the ‘body’ above Christ. Under Ratzinger the brand continued the hatred of Christ, but specifically elevated Rabbinicalism and hoodwinked ‘traditionalism’. Under Bergoglio, every abomination get’s its day of kicking truth in the face.
Once again Louie presents us with real clear Catholicism….we have a lot of learning to do as Catholics no matter how traditional we are. The time to stop learning about Catholicism is never.I will second Servant of Our Lady And thankyou for a very respectful and informative post .
I think traditional Catholics in the US tend to politicise the faith. It doesn’t matter if a person is a liar or demagogue, as long as they vocally support some of the party platform they are the second coming. I’m not talking about Scalia, but how in the world did a man like Cardinal Mueller become an orthodox defender of the faith? Or how did Donald Trump become America’s last hope? Perhaps if they did some reading of the New Advent encyclopaedia they would be shocked to find out that Catholic teaching is neither conservative nor liberal and is offensive both to political rightists and leftists.
I’m afraid it’s even worse than you said Louie :
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2016/02/scalias-sordid-simulacrum.html
I agree Rich. People who work for our government, which pays better than most jobs nowadays BTW, are all compromised in some way, in the objective order, because, as I believe, our government, is a criminal, and on a deeper level, an evil organization. Of course people may not want to hear that but it just depends on how far the rabbit hole they want to go.
The relevant question is at what point does the cooperation with evil become a sin. It depends on how direct one’s involvement is, and just being associated with an evil government may not be enough to cause one to sin, but then again, as you say, being a politician, a lawyer, and especially a judge, in this country, would involve so much compromise with the Catholic faith that God would be mocked on a daily basis.
Michael Hoffman wrote this about Justice Scalia:
Justice Scalia’s Sordid Simulacrum
http://rense.com/general96/scaliasordid.html
You are spot on, Frank. I just logged in to post Mr. Hoffman’s piece and saw you beat me to the punch. So I’ll beat you to posting this piece which is from Nathan Lewin, who was mention by MH2 in his Scalia piece. My guess is MH2 posted this on his blog w/in the last hour:
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2016/02/most-jewish-gentile-on-supreme-court.html
For the record, my FB page is available for viewing under Nicholas Landholdt. And finally, here is what I posted in the blog’s comments section in response to MH2’s piece on poor Antonin Scalia:
“I am at a loss for words, Mr. Hoffman. (It’s also 2am in the morning and I can’t think anymore. LOL) I weep at “traditional Catholics” with influence who refuse to interview you or help you to promote your work for Truth. Ours is a perverse generation. For my part, I will do my damnedest to continue promoting your work and will circulate this particularly devastating piece on “devout Catholic” Antonin Scalia in the hope that one Catholic of influence will wake up and recognize that yours is a brilliant voice for “Veritas” that needs to be heard. I wish you Godspeed, my friend. P.S. One wonders what his FSSP priest-son’s thoughts were on his late father’s relationship with the rabbis? Kyrie eleison, and protect us from evil. “
Totally agree John.
But who will replace him? Someone better??
Check out Michael Hoffman 2’s Revisionisthistory.org for a very interesting view of Scalia’s more talmudic aspect.
Thank you, Louie, for pointing out Justice Scalia’s penchant for following whatever is in the Constitution rather than what is the Eternal Law of God. Strange that the liberal judges don’t have an issue breaking their demonic pledge to a agnostic document that promotes several errors. I recall reading an interview of Scalia by a Traditionalist outfit and the comments were lit up with realizing that he tended to deify the Constitution, letting it rather than Our Lord, decide his rulings. The commenters rightly called that idolatry.
Yes, we cannot judge this man’s soul. Only Our Lord can do that. I wonder how Christian government officials in the Roman Empire acted when they did their jobs? They probably became the martyrs that changed it all:+)
God bless~
Thank you for the link to Michael Hoffman.
Incredible!
Eye-opening, for sure!
That article (“The hat that gave Obama the finger”) attributed to “economist, Thomas Sowell” is in fact the work of an “unashamedly liberal” smug, female twenty-something who calls her amateur blog “So Well Read,” not the great conservative author, Thomas Sowell.
This country is not and never was a Catholic government. It was largely born as the social project of Enlightenment deists who had no sympathy whatsoever for Catholicism. All we can hope for is for Catholics to take an active role in politics in such non-Catholic governments with a view to limiting and mitigating damage and maybe opening roads to closer proximity to Catholic principles.
I cannot understand why it is that Louie is the only traditionalist (aka Catholic) blogger, other than Michael Hoffman, who is speaking this truth about Justice Scalia. In order to properly understand our Catholic faith this truth must be spoken, in charity, as Louie has done.
Michael Matt has only this to say:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2317-justice-antonin-scalia-remembered-a-remnant-interview
A quick view of Mr. Matt’s commentators reveals their lack of understanding the truth that Louie presents here, as well.
This is disconcerting, to say the least!
Uninformed commenters is the least of the Remnants problems, Servant of Our Lady.
A guy named Steve Skojek (an Americanist) who runs the borderline traditional blog 1 Peter 5 blasted Louie for this post on FaceBook the other day, and Michael Matt actually agreed with him. He even said that what Louie wrote here as bad as what Fr. Paul Nicholson did when Fr. Gruner died! I couldn’t believe it. I thought they were friends? Reminded of Michael Voris.
I’m hoping Louie will comment about what’s going on.
How horrific, PioNono!
It reminds me of Luke 2:35:
“And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.”
The thoughts of many hearts are certainly being revealed.
Heaven help us.
God forgive us.
Our Lady of Good Success, Our Lady of LaSallette, Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.