A New Religious Test
The United States constitutional law has always been opposed to “religious tests” for public office. Of course, this has not always deterred societal prejudices from interfering in confirmation hearings or otherwise rearing their heads into the government. A prominent example comes to mind in the presidential candidacy of Al Smith in 1928. A devout Catholic, Smith was accused of having “dual loyalties” between Rome and the United States. His nomination brought out the worst anti-Catholic tendencies in Americans, many of whom espoused the oft-repeated claim that the Vatican was anathema to American liberty.
Apparently, enabling Catholics to serve in government is comparable to enabling fascists? Does this make the Catholic Church a hate organization? The implications are certainly unsavory.
Of course, we’d be lying in pretending that Catholic Americans are the worst victims of this sort of treatment. We could talk about the fact that the United States to this day has never had a non-Christian president, how anti-Semitism still runs rampant or how significant portions of our country would not feel comfortable voting for an atheist. The list goes on.
Yet unfortunately, a new sort of anti-Catholic religious test has arisen in disguise. Consider, for instance, the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic conservative, to the 7th Circuit Court back in 2017. Judge Barrett, in line with Church teaching, is personally opposed to abortion. When pressed on whether her religious views influenced her judicial philosophy, Barrett said that “it’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.” That should have been the end of the story, but of course, it wasn’t. In her line of questioning, Senator Dianne Feinstein told the nominee that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is of concern.” And in comes that old dual loyalty canard used against Catholics (and, to an even greater extent, Jews) for the longest time—that one cannot be a faithful Catholic and a loyal American.
And it would be one thing if this were some sort of limited instance. But it isn’t. Fast forward to December—this time, another Catholic was up for nomination, and his name was Brian Buescher. Buescher, also a circuit court nominee, holds memberships in the Knights of Columbus, a two-million-strong service organization of faithful Catholics that has, throughout its long history, advanced the cause of legal equality for black and Jewish Americans, stood against the Ku Klux Klan’s attempt to hijack public school curricula and led countless charity operations.
Shockingly, the Knights of Columbus keeps their views in line with the Vatican’s on such issues as abortion. Senators Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris, the latter of whom is a presidential candidate in the 2020 election, both spoke of the “extreme” views of the Knights, despite those views being no different from the official teachings of the Church. Both requested that Buescher withdraw his membership in the Knights “to avoid the appearance of bias.” In doing so, they made their position clear—that one cannot hold membership in a faith-based Catholic organization and properly serve as a judge. In short, they too believe that Catholics have dual loyalties, and that they lack the ability to separate their religious views from their jobs. That same test could be applied more broadly—the Catholic Church holds the same “extremist” views that the Knights hold. Could we not then say that one should withdraw their membership from the Catholic Church in order to be considered for a government position? There is no difference: both are insidious religious tests.
Worst of all, when criticized and rebuked by the Senate at-large, Hirono accused those who called her out to hold “the alt-right’s position.” Apparently, enabling Catholics to serve in government is comparable to enabling fascists? Does this make the Catholic Church a hate organization? The implications are certainly unsavory.
In the name of fairness, however, I want to end this with a disclaimer—in writing this article, I do not mean to assert that Catholics face the worst discrimination in this country. Thanks to the efforts of groups like the Knights, this is no longer the case by any stretch of the measure. But, we ought to oppose a religious test wherever it may arise, whenever it may arise because we never know who will be subject to it tomorrow.