Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Law, Order, and Amy Coney Barrett

Law, Order, and Amy Coney Barrett

Last updated on: October 15, 2020 at 5:52 am by Henry Karlson

Law, Order, and Amy Coney Barrett 2020-10-15T05:52:17-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Rachel Malehorn: Amy Coney Barrett /Wikimedia Commons

Just as Jesus could say the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath (cf. Mk. 2:27), so we can and should say the law is made for humanity, not humanity for the law. The law is meant to promote and preserve justice. It should aim for and promote the common good. If some law does not promote justice, but rather, injustice, it is not to be followed or served – an unjust law is no law.

Positive law can be questioned; it does not have to be, indeed, should not be treated as an absolute. When it is found wanting, it is to be corrected, if not eliminated. No text, by itself, speaks for itself. Everyone who reads, interprets what they read. Those who try to pretend otherwise confuse their own ideas of the law with the law itself, creating dangerous ideologies. Tyranny promotes itself along such ideals. While there might be some sort of order which comes out of the enforcement of tyranny, such order promotes evil and must be resisted.

We must be concerned more about justice than the text of the law, that is, we must interpret laws which are in place in accordance with justice. If a particular law promotes exploitation, if it protects privilege at the expense of the needs of the common good, it undermines justice and must be rejected. What, moreover, is more common than the whole of humanity? And how can the good of humanity be promoted if the law does not protect the environment in which humans live, because with the destruction of the environment, humanity itself will suffer, if not become extinct. Thus, Pope Francis said, “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life.”[1] And, he pointed out, humans play an important role in what is happening to the environment, including and especially, climate change:

It would hardly be helpful to describe symptoms without acknowledging the human origins of the ecological crisis. A certain way of understanding human life and activity has gone awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us. Should we not pause and consider this? At this stage, I propose that we focus on the dominant technocratic paradigm and the place of human beings and of human action in the world. [2]

It is hard to believe that a so-called faithful Catholic could outright dismiss Catholic teaching with a shrug, but that is what so many seem to do with climate change, despite the fact Pope after Pope has spoken of the need for us to be concerned about the environment. Thus, when Amy Coney Barrett was asked about climate change, she had ample opportunity to show how her Catholic faith could work with and promote the common good, because it is exactly what the church is doing, but instead, she showed her willingness to ignore the crises by saying she is not a scientist. Certainly, she could say she is not a scientist, but she could at least admit the that the scientific consensus is that climate change is real and dangerous and that humans need to do something about it (without dictating what should be done). That she could not do so, that she was unwilling to speak in a generality in support of the common good, appears to follow from her own environmental legacy in which she did not seem to work for the common good, but rather, private interests.

This, of course, is just one example among many in which Amy Coney Barret has shown she does not represent Catholic teaching. This is why criticism of her must not be equated with hostility towards Catholicism. At the forefront of Catholic discussions of justice is the common good. Indeed, as Pope Benedict XVI explained, we must take a stand for the common good, using political institutions, which includes the courts, for it. That means, we work on behalf of our neighbors:

To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God.[3]

Sadly, Amy Coney Barret has not shown any sign of this in her judgment or ruling. Her own ideological stand with the law, originalism and textualism, like any fundamentalism, hides its ideologies by trying to claim whatever decisions are made come from the law itself, instead of the biases of the interpreter. And it does so in order to promote the letter of the law over the spirit, a letter which always leads to death, as Paul noted, because the law is seen as more important than humanity and the common good. Is it any wonder, then, that Amy Coney Barrett’s opinions seem to harm the common good, and to allow injustices to prevail, such as when she questioned whether or not racist epithets in the work place could constitute a hostile working environment, or when she suggested gun rights are to be protected more than voting rights? It appears, for her, individualism trumps the common good, and this is why she is more ready to defend individualistic interpretation of rights than those which work for the common good. Is this why, when questioned about basic principles in the Constitution, she is liable to forget those rights which help society when the common good is neglected?

Catholic teaching on civil society is clear: social justice, the common good, must be promoted, and when it is not, society itself is liable to collapse:

But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.[4]

It is by these principles laws are to be interpreted or overturned. The Constitution was not meant to be a static, unchanging document. It was not interpreted one way by the Founding Fathers of the United States. It was read and interpreted in a multitude of ways, many of which allowed for and showed changing opinions and interpretations from its inception. Those who try to hold to some sort of legalistic textualism and originalism are philosophically naïve, if not outright dishonest. The point of the Constitution was to establish a “more perfect union,” and over time, we have learned what it takes to create that more perfect union, such as the rejection of slavery and the promotion of equal rights and justice for all. Catholics have principles which they must put in play in order to judge these standards, among which, is the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. The rule of law, society, must not ignore the needs of the people. To serve only the wants of the elite; as Pope Francis indicates, will lead to violence as those who have been disregarded will no longer let such injustice continue without a response:

When one part of society exploits all that the world has to offer, acting as if the poor did not exist, there will eventually be consequences. Sooner or later, ignoring the existence and rights of others will erupt in some form of violence, often when least expected. Liberty, equality and fraternity can remain lofty ideals unless they apply to everyone. Encounter cannot take place only between the holders of economic, political or academic power. Genuine social encounter calls for a dialogue that engages the culture shared by the majority of the population. It often happens that good ideas are not accepted by the poorer sectors of society because they are presented in a cultural garb that is not their own and with which they cannot identify. A realistic and inclusive social covenant must also be a “cultural covenant”, one that respects and acknowledges the different worldviews, cultures and lifestyles that coexist in society. [5]

The basic principles which Catholics use to engage justice and the promotion of the common good are, of course, principles are not exclusively Catholic, but common to all humanity. Much of it comes from the so-called “natural law,” and the way philosophers through the centuries have developed our understanding of justice. Those who would ignore these principles and try to force an earlier, unreformed vision of the United States upon us will not only counter the common good, but the intention of the framers of the Constitution itself, and by doing so, risk creating the violence which might end the Republic itself.

While it is true, Amy Coney Barrett will ignore questions about specific cases which she might have to rule on if she is indeed made a Supreme Court Justice (a fate which is mostly certain once she was nominated because of the way the GOP is wielding power), asking general questions about her principles and how she understands the Constitution does not require her to make specific declarations. It is clear, she is dodging questions which she can and should answer. When asked if a sitting President could postpone an election, she should be ready to answer with the Constitution which says it is Congress which has the power over elections. When asked about voter intimidation, she should be willing to state unequivocally it is wrong, even if each particular version of it will differ and so should have different consequences if and when addressed in courts. The fact that she will not answer such questions should be enough to raise further questions about Amy’s principles, because that is exactly what such questions are meant to reveal. Why will she not reveal her basic principles? As prudence is always required when dealing with particular cases, revealing principles will not reveal the outcome of any particular case. It would appear she has something to hide, which is why her own assertion we should trust her because she has integrity runs hollow.

The law is for humanity. The Constitution promotes the common good, seeking, as it does, for a more perfect union. From her record, it seems that Amy Coney Barrett does not get this. Her textualism and originalism, like all fundamentalisms, puts the letter over the spirit of the law. And for that reason, granting her a seat on the Supreme Court, which seems inevitable, seems to be another step towards the tyranny which the Constitution itself sought to prevent.

[1] Pope Francis, Laudato si’. Vatican Translation. ¶23.

[2] Pope Francis, Laudato si’, ¶101.

[3] Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate, Vatican Translation. ¶7.

[4] St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae. Vatican translation. ¶70.

[5] Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti. Vatican translation. ¶ 219.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Previous Post

October 14, 2020

Simple Prayer

Next Post

October 18, 2020 Coming To Know Jesus

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz