Sotomayer is a Non-Practicing Catholic

Most Catholics don’t give a crap what the ND protestors think about anything. Even fewer non-Catholics do. Why is this worth a post?

As a non-practicing Catholic myself. Let be the first to say. No one really cares.

You don’t get it Amy, its not about how often Sotomayor goes to church. It’s about the millions of Hispanic women who are the die hards of the Catholic church who are not going to take kindly to an attack on a culturally Catholic Hispanic woman, educated in Catholic schools and being held up by Catholic schools in the Bronx as a hero. So if you think not going to mass three times a week is going to matter to these Hispanic women who are going to hold up this woman as a role model to their children you are sadly mistaken.

For those of you that were wondering, you shouldn’t have wondered in the first place.

Honestly, who gives a happy monkey f**k?

Nobody should care what religion she does or doesn’t practice, as long as she keeps religious beliefs and judicial responsibilities separate.

Got any news today, AS? Because this isn’t.

It’s called “C&E” Catholic. I grew up as a “C&E” Lutheran.

.
Judge Sotomayor, we are told…For those of you keeping score at home, that’s the description of a non-practicing, cultural Catholic.
.
Lazy, lazy post, Amy. Next time, try answering the following:
.
1) Who is ‘we’?
.
2) According to whom is that a description of a non-practicing Catholic?
.
3) Why is this important, or to whom is it important?
.
Links would be good. You’re on the Web, remember.

2) According to whom is that a description of a non-practicing Catholic?
_
certainly not according to the Catholic Church, which does not require regular church attendance to be considered a practicing Catholic.

She is a non-practicing catholic. I am sure you did not ask yourself the next question. So, I am going to ask: she is a non-practicing catholic, so?

I agree that this is lazy journalism in that the post is incomplete. I am sure you have reasons (political and religious) why you think we should know she is a non-practicing catholic. But you did not tell us.

I am sure if one asks the new nominee, she would most likely say (like me) the church lost her on Humanae Vitae and Envangelium Vitae.

Ahem, isn’t it clear that this post was meant to be a dog whistle reminding people of the faux outrage of two weeks ago?

What’s the point of this post? Are conservative Catholics planning an assault on the cafeteria?

jarais, they’re coming for our donuts!

It’s sort of surprising that with 6 Catholics on the court it isn’t an issue, but I guess the Republicans are pro all Christianity in all forms while if she’s non-practicing it’s a smaller issue for the secular crowd.

What really strikes me though is what the opposition IS centering around. Sotomayer had better marks than the “intellectual” Alito throughout college and Law School. She’s got more experience as a federal judge than anyone on the bench had when appointed. The biggest complaint against her is she’s harsh and abrasive in oral argument, much like Sam Alito.

But the Republicans smear her as stupid and unqualified. Their evidence that she’s not the best available pick? Her ethnicity and gender. To simplify Rush Limbaugh, if you hire anyone who isn’t white, you’re a racist.

Sorry correction, much like Scalia, not Alito.

So, you’re saying that Catholics would only have a problem with a Supreme Court Justice killing babies if said Justice were a practicing Catholic?
Does this mean that since I’m no longer Catholic, I’m not sinning any more (no, no baby-killing, guys)?
Well damn, that takes all the fun out of it.

And by the way Amy–
If you want people to link to your post, you should probably get Judge Sotomayer’s name right in the headline.

“get Judge Sotomayer’s name right”
.
That’s pretty funny how quickly, and it appears without checking, AS changed it.

WTF? I know she got nonimated this morning but AS still does not know the correct spelling?

That’s pretty funny how quickly, and it appears without checking, AS changed it.
.
No, that’s hilarious.
.
AS, I hope you can enjoy the joke.

Swampland – TIME.com
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Sotomayer is a Non-Practicing Catholic
…
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Sotomayor and The Culture Wars
.
I’m still confused. Is it, perhaps, Sotto-major?

Umm, while I’m not usually a fan of Amy’s post, this is just a blog entry, and while many of the readers, myself included aren’t particularly interested in Sotomayer’s religion, it’s still a point to mention since the GOP is grasping at straws to find some issue or group that would jump on board attacks of her. It’s a simple blog post, not a full blown article.

Again, not that it should matter, but this is America, where the tiniest fly on an elephant’s ass is worth sticking your head up there to know which way the wind blows.

This same blog posted a story on how it wasn’t even Notre Dame people, or catholics, that were throwing the biggest fit about Obama. So why even bring that up?
.
I’ll disagree with most and say I actually do care if she’s a practicing Catholic. I’m thrilled that she isn’t. But to yet again bring up ND protesters is childish. It’s a non-story to everyone but a few people in the media.

I love it! Swampland gets it right in three headlines and the body of a fourth post, but AS (who never interacts with commenters) can be conned into misspelling the subject’s name with ease!
.
That kind of credulity, of course goes a long way in reporting on religious matters – and explains why those matters belong somewhere else.

This post is obviously an addendum or update to the previous culture war blog post in which Sullivan commented that she didn’t know if Sotomayer is a practicing Catholic or not. Sullivan does his often, posting a new blog entry rather than updating the blog to which it belongs.
.
I find the fact interesting, especially in light of the majority of Catholics on the court. Like Rorschach, I do care, and am encouraged that she has maybe dispensed with her childhood voodoo brainwashing, unlike most of the other Catholics on the Court.

Time magazine: “Sotomayer is a Non-Practicing Catholic”.

-

“Non-Practicing Catholic”? ROTFLMAO! For the kids in the audience who are unfamiliar with Time magazine: “Non-Practicing Catholic” is Time magazine’s euphemism for an atheist or pagan who had a great-great-great-great-great grandparent who once attended a Mass for a friend’s funeral.

-

Also, Amy Sullivan calls the lawless, militantly anti-Constitutionalist, political activist Sotomayer “a non-practicing, cultural Catholic”. A “non-practicing, cultural Catholic”? “[C]ultural Catholic”? Sotomayer is not a “Catholic”, and consequently she can not be a “cultural Catholic”. Although Time magazine’s audience is at least 99% pagan and atheist, you’d think that if Time magazine were to have someone writing about the Catholic church, they could find someone who had some idea of what a Catholic is. Hint: Sotomayer ain’t in any way a “Catholic”.

It’s spelled SOTOMAYOR – just like it’s spelled in the last two other posts on Swampland.

Hey I am a Catholic: what does it mean to be a practising Catholic. I just talked to some relatives in Ireland where the Catholic Church has been exposed for it corrupt practices regarding children placed in their care. The report is damning and the Church is in denial. I don’t need that kind of practice.

Thanks for the clarification, Pope Sullivan.

What’s interesting is that the Catholic church is so well represented on the Supreme Court these days. Why is that? Is it “give me the child and I’ll show you the man”? Are federal judges more likely to be Catholic?
.
As to whether it makes a difference that Sotomayor is a practicing Catholic or not: to Catholic activists it makes a difference, doesn’t it? Isn’t admitting that Sotomayor’s a non-practicing Catholic like waving a red flag in Bill “Bull” Donohue’s face?
.

BTW, what is a “cultural Catholic”? The Catholic whose outlook on life was shaped by nuns who made us think for ourselves in the shadow of Vatican II?

[...] a more serious note, I do suggest the GOP follow Amy Sullivan’s lead in suggesting because Maria Sonia Sotomayer Sotomayor “was raised as a Catholic and attends [...]

[...] Six Catholics on the Bench? Posted by Amy Sullivan | Comments (0) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This Since my fellow religion writers are all over the question of what it would mean if six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Catholics, I should probably expand on my initial three sentence analysis. [...]

[...] The current composition of the Supreme Court of the United States consists of six Catholic Justices. Four of the Catholic Justices are expected to rule in favor of the Catholic Church: Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. Anthony Kennedy is also a practicing Catholic, he is also expected to vote in favor of the Catholic Church, but his probability of voting against is greater than that of the other Justices. Sonia Sotomayor is the most interesting case. She is a non-practicing Catholic, which means she could have left because of indifference or dislike.[1] Yet, she studied in Catholic schools before going to Princeton, which means she has experienced firsthand the services that the Catholic Church provides.[2] She could go either way. Yet, the Catholic Church only needs five of the six to rule in its favor. [1] “Sotomayor is a Non-Practicing Catholic.” Amy Sullivan. Time. May 26, 2009. [...]