Every year since 1953, the (Catholic) Cathedral of St. Matthew in Washington, D. C. has held a special mass for civil servants. This Red Mass is an invitation-only service meant to celebrate the legal profession. The latest Red Mass was held on Sunday, October 4, 2009—the day before the Supreme Court began its new term. The name of the service, Red Mass, dates back to the 13th century and refers to the red vestments worn by the church celebrants (priests). Although, in the past, Presidents have attended, Obama did not attend the 2009 service; Vice President Biden did. Several Supreme Court Justices always attend. For this last mass, five of the six Roman Catholic Justices attended (Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito), as well as Justice Breyer, who is Jewish. Justice Thomas did not attend even though he is also Roman Catholic. The sermon (or Homily, in the Catholic Church) touched on the issue of abortion while anti-abortion protesters rallied outside the Cathedral steps. Abortion issues were not on the Supreme Court agenda during this term, although the cross in the Mojave National Preserves was.
The idea of bringing together those persons involved in the law of the national government to “simply pray for the wisdom of God” seems so reasonable to those of Christian or fundamentalist backgrounds. After all, our Founding Fathers, admitted that a nation’s leaders required moral fortitude in order to serve the people well and fairly. Even after studying how the Supreme Court derives their decisions and admiring the subtlety and complexity of their arguments, the fact that just before they begin their judiciary responsibilities they attend a religious service expressly seeking the “wisdom of God” seems hypocritical and unsympathetic to the non-Christian and areligious. This Mass combined with the daily harkening of God in the Court implies that this is not a matter of civil religion or symbolic religious discourse. Quite the contrary, this seems to reinforce Justice Douglas’ rendering in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) that “we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Six of nine Justices attended this service and I find myself wondering just how they go about distancing themselves from their obvious religious identities when deciding religious causes. Is it any wonder that the Court keeps handing down instantly controversial opinions—even between and among themselves? If the law itself is blind to subjectivity, should not those who prescribe the law also be blind to subjectivity? Attending an obviously sectarian religious service on the wake of a legal term seems to preclude that necessary sense of objectivity.
4 comments:
The claims you have made in your response are pretty bold. I think it is very important in response to this event that one is able to stand outside themselves in order to give the event and the justices their own freedoms to exercise religion. The first important part of the event is that it is hosted by the Catholic Church and by invitation only. Secondly, no one is being forced to attend the mass. Third and very importantly, I think we must be very careful in saying what a justice should or should not do in their own personal religious exercises, the First Amendment applies to them, too. Fourth and lastly, I am having a very hard time understanding how you are able to factualize that these six justices were specifically "seeking the wisdom of God." In addition and in conjunction with that, I think it is very difficult to conclude from the article that the attendance of this event or any religious event shows the expression of hypocrisy and unsympathetic feelings toward those of an opposing belief.
I agree with the comment posted above in this case. Politicians have their own lives outside of the hallways of Congress and the Supreme Court. The Constitution not only gives citizens like us the right to choose our own religion, but politicians as well. The politicians who attended this mass are given a constitutional right to practice whatever religion they deem fit. Citizens need to trust, however, that their religion will not play a part in their decision making. If it does, than we, as citizens in a democratic country, have the power to vote them out of office. While this trust may be hard to come by, it is essential to be able to allow our elected officials to share the same rights that we do.
I have to agree with the two previous comments about this post in saying that it is unrealistic and unfair to think that our elected and government officials should not be afforded the same freedom to exercise religion as the rest of the citizenship. Numerous posts and comments have appeared on this blog saying that it is impossible for these officials to act and decide objectively on the issues presented to them, and that their affiliation to or belief in a religion compromises their decisions. The C Street church and the National Prayer Breakfast have been such contentious issues, but I believe that as long as these officials act in constitutional and appropriate ways that we as the people have no right to judge them on their religious practices and commitments.
I am slightly torn on this issue. While I understand that the First Amendment applies to Justices just as it applies to all Americans, I do think that Justices must distance themselves from religion in order to maintain neutrality. The Justices are grown, intelligent men and women, but to assume that they are not persuaded by professors of their faith seems to me a bit naïve. Men and Women attend church services not only to share their beliefs, but to gain a deeper understanding of those beliefs from clergy who present the homily. How and at what point does one separate his religion from his profession?
Post a Comment