Good v. Bad Catholics

In the Los Angeles Times, Margaret Carlson offers up a clear-eyed assessment of the current brouhaha over the religious background of Judge John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court. She rightly deduces the distilled argument to be over who is and is not a good Catholic:

So who are the bad Catholics? The easiest way to describe them is that they are … well, liberal Democrats.

Remember when Wolf Blitzer introduced conservative Robert Novak and liberal Paul Begala on CNN for a segment on the new pope? "I am sure Bob is a good Catholic," Blitzer said. "I am not so sure about Paul Begala." Begala shot back, "That annoys me," and mentioned that his oldest son was named after Pope John Paul II. "I don't think anybody should presume that a liberal is not a good Catholic."

But they do, even though frequently the Vatican agrees with liberals. It's just that in politics, the Vatican's agreement with conservative Catholics on abortion and homosexuality trumps its agreement with liberals on the war, the death penalty and taxes.

Click here to read Carlson

At The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey, the editorial board finds good reason to oppose Roberts' confirmation for a seat on the High Court, citing evidence, as shown in his Reagan-era writings, of hostility toward women's and civil rights:

His positions in the memos - against affirmative action, against federal efforts to combat sex discrimination, and for prayer in schools - give disturbing clues as to how he might vote on issues that are very much alive today.

Mr. Roberts sharply criticized affirmative action in one memo, saying the "obvious reason" such programs failed was that "they required the recruiting of unqualified candidates."

Click here to read The Record's editorial