Catholicism 259: Ex Cathedra

Posted by Johnny at 1:02 p.m.

Here's something that I've recently discovered:

Ex cathedra (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

Aside from being the longest sentence I've seen in a while, the above definition of "ex cathedra" can be summed up in (very) laymans terms to mean "something all Catholics have to believe because God said so via the Pope." Note, I took the word "Christian" and narrowed its definition to only the subset of "Catholic." This is because not all Christians subscribe to papal doctrines - those who do are pretty much Catholics, whether they are Roman Catholic or Anglican (or anything else).

Ok, now here's a quote from Evangelium Vitae (March 1995), written by Pope Jean Paul II:

Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action.

It's important to note that this writing was presented ex cathedra. So applying our definition of "ex cathedra" to the above writing, we determine that as of 1995, all Catholics have been "told by God" to be against abortion and euthanasia, amongst the other ways of killing innocent people (like murder). It's also important to note that this dogma applies to ALL Catholics, including judges.

Now let's sidestep into the point of this post. In the latest US Supreme Court there are 2 Protestants, 2 Jews, and 5 Roman Catholics, 4 of whom are not only devout Catholics but staunch conservatives. However you count it, the Catholics have the majority, even if Judge Kennedy may or may not be devout. So if the other 4 are bound by this dogma, c. 1995, to uphold the Catholic belief of "No Abortion for You," it would only take one more vote to reject the US Constitution in favour of privately held religious beliefs. This is scary.

Every Federal US Justice takes an oath under 28 USC #453 to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitutional laws of the United States." So, if a judge (or four) is bound by his private faiths to take a specific side of a constitutional issue, how can he be impartial? He can't.

There are a couple of possibilities for these judges when the issue of abortion comes up (and I say "when", not "if"):

1. The judge holds his/her authority and responsibility to the country more important than his/her personal beliefs and thus votes in favour of abortion [the correct decision]
2. The judge disqualifies himself/herself from the proceedings, indicating that his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned (under 28 USC #455(a)) [a respectable, but possibly counter-productive decision]
3. The judge holds his/her private beliefs more important than his/her responsibility to the US Constitution and votes against abortion [the wrong decision]

In an ideal world, #2 and #3 wouldn't even be on the list. In this world, however, I have a feeling that #3 is the only one that these judges would consider.

Now, before you accuse me of being impartial in the opposite way, I will turn you to Article One of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. It states that legal existence is granted to those "born or naturalized in the United States." Thus, since a fetus is neither born nor naturalized in the first place, it does not legally exist as a person.

We could discuss abortion for hours (or years) in all three levels of the moral hierarchy (Philosophical Ethics, Law, and religion). From a phil. ethics point of view, we could make valid arguments on both sides of the abortion debate. And in the religious point of view, well, argument is kind of pointless.

As far as these judges should be concerned, the only moral framework they should be using is the Legal one and thus, according to the US Constitution, a fetus is not a person so abortion is legal.

END OF DEBATE.