Today in Supreme Court History: July 31, 2018

7/31/2018: Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (decided July 31, 1942): allows Nazi saboteurs to argue their habeas petition before the Court, but upholds Presidential order that they be tried by a special military tribunal; admits that all federal courts are functioning normally but defers to Presidential authority in time of “grave public danger” and holds that the tribunal had power to try anyone regardless of citizenship or military status (eight Germans were deposited by submarines off Florida and Long Island with cash and explosives; it was known that the Hitler regime was training saboteurs but J. Edgar Hoover was inept at finding them, preferring to order dragnets on immigrant populations; the plot came to the FBI’s attention only because the leader, a former U.S. Army soldier, decided to turn them in before anything happened; he was one of the two who was not subsequently executed, but was deported to Germany in 1948 and tried for the rest of his life to get back into the United States)

[Dilan Esper]

Technically, the only thing they did on July 31 was this:

"The Court holds:"
"(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission."
"(2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted."
"(3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus."

Everything else you said was not written up until after the executions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, thanks.

These out-of-session decisions are pretty spare so I try to add some background and aftermath information.

[not guilty]

Justice Kennedy wrote some helpful opinions, particularly involving decent and equal treatment for LGBTQs, but I hope he burns in hell for Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[Dan Schiavetta]

today’s movie review: Spotlight, 2015

Recounts the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal through the eyes of the Boston reporters who broke the story in 2002. We see them put together the lack of cooperation from Church authorities, records showing frequent transfers of certain priests from parish to parish, refusals of accused priests to talk to them, etc., and also how they ignored reports of abuse made to them by victims’ attorneys years before who were therefore forced into settling their cases in secret. As someone who spent years defending the Church in such cases, I agree with one reviewer who said “there is not one ounce of Hollywood bullshit” in this movie.

The worst aspect of this situation was the behavior of the bishops, who covered up the abuse by ignoring complaints and transferring accused priests to other parishes where they continued abusing. In large part this was the fault of John Paul II, who might have been a groundbreaking Pope outside the church, but inside the church he was a weak administrator who appointed bishops solely on the basis of doctrinal conformity without regard to managerial (in)competence, and created a “speak no evil” atmosphere where uncomfortable matters were not discussed. E.g., a pattern of unaddressed sexual abuse was brought to the Vatican’s attention by Fr. Thomas Doyle in the 1980’s and (like with the Boston newspapers) was met with inaction.

More basically, Why was the abuse so pervasive in the first place? Overwhelmingly the victims were young boys. This was the product of the Church’s requirement of a male, celibate priesthood, which was instituted in the 12th century — not because they wanted “dedicated” priests but because of property concerns. (They didn’t want widows and children claiming the priest’s property.) Coupled with the ban on homosexuality, the inevitable result was a priesthood of closeted gay men, many of whom were psychosexually immature (according to one study, having on the average the maturity of a 13 year old).

I could go on and on about this. But more generally I’m struck by how anti-sex Christianity has always been. It seems to be alone among religions in having no sexuality tradition. No “Song of Solomon”. No Kama Sutra, no “Sash on the Merits of Wedlock”, no phallic or yonic artwork. The early Church allowed sex to happen only grudgingly (St. Paul conceded that “it is better to marry than to burn”, 1 Cor. 7:9), and it’s not surprising that its teaching on sex, such as it is, being formulated only by celibate men, is hilariously ill-informed.

Even some of the attorneys defending the Church, married men with children and grandchildren, seemed like cases of arrested development. I could give a number of examples, but let me pick one. We were defending the parish in a case involving a girl who was volunteering in the parish office. A priest on one occasion hugged her, on another occasion gave her kiss on the cheek. The third occasion, he fondled her breasts, whereupon she immediately kicked him in the balls and called in the pastor who put the priest “on leave” and reported the incident to the police.

The supervising attorney actually wanted to argue that because the girl did not object to the hug or the kiss, why wouldn’t the priest think it was o.k. to touch her breasts? I didn’t know what to say. Apparently he had never had (mis)adventures in the back seats of movie theaters as a teenager. I went to another attorney, who struck me as a liberal type, and he agreed with this argument!

[Bob from Ohio]

"instituted in the 12th century"

St. Paul might disagree.

Its just not true. Even left leaning wikipedia:

"The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the Synod of Elvira and the later Council of Carthage (390)."

[Dan Schiavetta]

St. Paul fiercely defended the right of St. Peter and the other apostles to be married and bring their wives along with them (1 Cor. 9:5). After Peter there were other married Popes; the last one to bring his wife along with him to the Vatican was Adrian II (867 – 872). After that of course there were married priests and bishops. The Church-wide prohibition on marriage came into being only with the First Lateran Council in 1123.

Even today, the Church allows married priests if they are part of the Eastern-Rite Catholic Church or if they transfer from the Anglican Church and are already married.

[Dilan Esper]

Right. Bob's position, though, is fascinating as a piece of religious history, because it shows exactly how believers come to believe lies. The Church, after all, doesn't admit that it instituted celibacy over 1000 years in because of property reasons. They retconned it to the founders of the Church and attributed it to God. And then the believers, who trust the Church, repeat the lie. Even educated believers like Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm not Catholic.

[not guilty]

One need not be Catholic to perpetuate a falsehood about Catholicism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Church itself perpetrates falsehoods about itself.

The current authoritative teaching on why priests must be celibate is Paul VI’s Sacerdotalis Caelibatus from 1967. It cites other verses from 1 Cor. 9 but not the most relevant verse, 9:5 (see my comment above). You’d think that Pope Paul would deal with the clear teaching of St. Paul and either distinguish it, or explain why it no longer applies. Instead it’s ignored. Sacerdotalis Caelibatus is a dishonest piece of work.

[Dilan Esper]

Not the only one either. My favorite is the "burial site" and "remains" of St. Peter, which are so obviously faked that the Church should be embarrassed about it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is a shrine somewhere (I can't look it up now) that claims to have a vial of the Virgin Mary's breast milk. One wonders how this was obtained.

JOSEPH: Mary, can you give a shot of that stuff, right here in this stone ground grail?
MARY: What? Why?? Ouch! -- man, this kid's a real biter!
JOSEPH: Somehow I get the feeling it will be important.
MARY: That's nuts.
JOSEPH: That's nuts??? You're lucky I didn't ditch you. "God made me pregnant." What kind of moron am I to believe that shit?
MARY: Well o.k. But give me a minute. The baby's really hungry today.
JOSEPH: Just a little squirt. How about from the other one?
MARY: That's not how the "girls" operate. They have to be pumped first. Wait -- [pulls breast away from baby] [pshhhhht!] Damn, I missed.
JOSEPH: Well maybe that spot on the floor will be important too.
MARY: Not like they'll ever clean it. Can't we get a better place?
JOSEPH: I'm not exactly on the fast track at the office, dear. Word's gotten out about our "secret". Try again.
[baby cries]
MARY: Wait. You can't ignore this kid for a single second. Ouch! These teeth are like nails! Here -- [pshhhht!]
JOSEPH: Akkk! Right in the eye!
MARY: Wait honey, one more try. I'll really squeeze this time. [pshhhhhhhhhhhhtt!]
JOSEPH: Got it!
MARY: O.k., go away now. I see that funny "angel" guy floating down to talk to me.
JOSEPH: Remember -- don't let him touch you again!

[Dilan Esper]

LOL. Now TBF a lot of the venerated relics aren't officially endorsed by the Church, but they don't exactly discourage it either.

But the Peter's bones stuff is actually a lie told by and endorsed by Popes.

[Syd Henderson]

You didn't say much about the quality of the movie, which is a mostly ordinary presentation of a powerful subject. However, there is one big scene which got to me then and still does: the priest who admits he molested children but it's okay because he didn't feel pleasure. Best scene in the movie and, yes, maturity about thirteen.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed.