Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (23 comments)

The Red Mass vs. the U.S. Constitution

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (8 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

Yesterday, the annual "Red Mass" was held in various Catholic churches and cathedrals across the country. This annual mass is held before the Supreme Court's fall session opens, and is intended to invoke the Holy Spirit's guidance in the administration of justice in the coming year. This is where Catholics come together to pray for holy rulings by the judiciary. I kid you not.

The Red Mass held in D.C. typically has a number of Supreme Court justices in attendance, by invitation from the Cardinal.

And often the officiating priest uses this opportunity to appeal for Catholic Church interests, such as anti-abortion rulings.

So how is this not a blatant violation of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State?

Aren't the Supreme Court Justices paid to base their rulings on the U.S. Constitution rather than the will of the Pope?

And how is this political mass not an insult to non-Christian justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who is Jewish)? And to non-Christian Americans in general?

Imagine the outrage if the Supreme Court justices were invited to attend a similar event annually at a mosque rather than a church -- and did so.

-----

 

Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
23 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The issue is by Mark Sashine on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 8:38:50 AM
So how is this not a blatant violation by steve scheetz on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 8:45:06 AM
No government sponsership-No violation by Rev Justin D Spears on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 8:50:35 AM
Nonetheless by chariotdrvr14 on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 11:00:21 AM
Violating "separation" or not... by Sandy Sand on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 9:30:51 AM
Don't me what to do, but I will tell you what to do? by Gallaher on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 1:46:24 PM
People paying women....uh....women....?? by Jami on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 2:50:26 PM
Let's not pretend to be foolish, folks by Mark Sashine on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 2:56:04 PM
Why is their credibility in question? by Michael Price on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 11:24:47 PM
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis by Anton Grambihler on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 3:25:42 PM
Stop the Anti-Catholic Rhetoric!!!!!!!! by Patrick Roberts on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 3:34:43 PM
That's quite a misleading headline by chariotdrvr14 on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 4:13:18 PM
I Wonder by Bob Gormley on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 6:14:56 PM
answers... by Pappy on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 7:06:57 PM
Do-gooders by Bob Gormley on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 9:13:23 PM
whatever... by Pappy on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 1:59:16 AM
Even people with whom we disagree have the freedom of speech by Dana Pico on Monday, Oct 1, 2007 at 8:16:45 PM
Dana, With respect, please read my first post on this topic. by steve scheetz on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 7:38:35 AM
Dana, let me apologize... by steve scheetz on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 7:45:14 AM
Good thinking by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 2:52:33 PM
well, by steve scheetz on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 7:21:39 PM
Religious Liberty At Play by truthserum on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 10:29:28 AM
Of course it's not a violation. by Michael Price on Tuesday, Oct 2, 2007 at 11:21:29 PM