{"id":4328,"date":"2006-01-18T12:27:25","date_gmt":"2006-01-18T16:27:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/01\/18\/roberts-a-serious-catholic-di"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:14","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:14","slug":"roberts-a-serious-catholic-dissent-against-euthanasia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/01\/18\/roberts-a-serious-catholic-dissent-against-euthanasia\/","title":{"rendered":"Roberts: a “Serious Catholic” dissent against euthanasia?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

As <\/font>SCOTUSBlog<\/em> noted<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/a> yesterday, <\/font>Gonzales v. Oregon<\/font><\/em><\/a> was the first time <\/font><\/p>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts has dissented to a Court decision. The Chief <\/font><\/p>\n

joined the <\/font>dissenting opinion<\/font><\/a> of Justice Scalia, and did not write separately. <\/font><\/p>\n

The case upheld an Oregon law that permits doctors to prescribe medica- <\/font><\/p>\n

tions<\/font> in certain assisted suicide situations. [See NYT<\/font><\/em><\/a>, “Fraught Issue, but <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Narrow Ruling in Oregon Suicide Case,” Jan. 18, 2006]<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We can’t know what was on Justice Roberts’ mind, other than the issues <\/font><\/p>\n

discussed by Justice Scalia. Nonetheless, it’s impossible not to wonder <\/font><\/p>\n

whether the following 2004 statement<\/a> by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, <\/font><\/p>\n

who <\/font>is now Pope Benedict XVI, played an important role: <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Benedict16\"<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. <\/font>
\nThe Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial <\/font>
\ndecisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, <\/font>
\nstates that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by <\/font>
\nconscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, <\/font>
\nsuch as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never <\/font>
\nlicit to obey it, or to \u2018take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of <\/font>
\nsuch a law or vote for it\u2019”. Christians have a “grave obligation <\/font>
\nof conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if <\/font>
\npermitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God\u2019s law. Indeed, from <\/font>
\nthe moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] <\/font>
\nThis cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for <\/font>
\nthe freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits <\/font>
\nit or requires it.”<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We have opined at this website that John Roberts appears to be a “serious<\/a> <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Catholic” who would feel a moral obligation to act on the above statement, <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

which is directed at Catholics in public life. [see our <\/font>prior post<\/font><\/a> here] <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\"JohnRobertsPix\"<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Chief Justice joined the dissent of Justice Scalia (with concludes that the <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

term “legitimate <\/font><\/em><\/font><\/font>medical <\/font><\/font>purpose . . . surely excludes the prescription of drugs <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

to produce death”), <\/font><\/font>rather <\/font><\/font>than <\/font>Justice Thomas’ dissent<\/font><\/a> (with its focus on the <\/font><\/p>\n

inconsistency with <\/font>the Raich v. Gonzales<\/em> precedent, which struck down <\/font><\/p>\n

California’s medical<\/font> marijuana <\/font>laws). That at least suggests that John Roberts <\/font><\/p>\n

had moral issues on his mind more than statutory construction and stare <\/em><\/font><\/p>\n

decisis<\/em>. (Those same priorities might also be on Steve Bainbridge’s mind<\/font><\/a>, <\/font><\/p>\n

as well as the gang at Mirror of Justice<\/font><\/a><\/em>.)<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

update<\/strong><\/em> <\/font>(Jan. 19, 2006)<\/font>: Robert Tsai offers his take on the Roberts’ <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

DIssentat Concurring Opinions<\/font><\/a><\/em> (Jan. 18, 2006), including that <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

“He, like Scalia, is willing to read Congress’ enumerated <\/font><\/p>\n

powers broadly (and the core of state’s rights narrowly in <\/font><\/p>\n

advance of national interests)–even when the strongest <\/font><\/p>\n

interest appears to be in cultivating moral standards. This <\/font><\/p>\n

is bad news forproponents of interstitial federalism.” [“Hail <\/font><\/p>\n

to the (New) Chief: Death With Dignity — Part III”]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Reid Report<\/a> suggests we “Recall that during his hearings, Roberts <\/font><\/p>\n

demurred on the ‘right to die’ issue.” Also, TalkLeft<\/em> gathers<\/a> editorial <\/font><\/p>\n

responses from the press (“Pro-Life Groups to Urge ‘John Ashcroft, <\/font><\/p>\n

MD Law’,” Jan. 18, 2006). And, Prof. <\/em>Bainbridge<\/em> frets<\/a> that “Scalia <\/font><\/p>\n

Scuttles Federalism” — and it “no longer seems possible, however, <\/font><\/p>\n

to believe that he is developing a coherent conservative jurisprudence.”<\/font><\/p>\n

That suggests that (a) Steve may not be particularly in sync with <\/font><\/p>\n

Scalia’s <\/font>“public morality” position, and (b) Steve has the untenable <\/font><\/p>\n

notion that there can be a monolithic “conservative jurisprudence” <\/font><\/p>\n

and that it will hold all<\/em> the anwers to every judicial decision. <\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/blockquote>\n

processional<\/font><\/p>\n

cold wind lifts one corner<\/font><\/p>\n

of the pall<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n

cathedral garden<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n

cardinals in the birdbath<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n

scatter drops of light<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n


\n<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n


\n<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

into the night\u00a0 <\/font><\/font>
\nwe talk of human cloning<\/font><\/font>
\nsnowflakes<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\n

witnessing his will<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

the frost-hatched<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

pane<\/font>
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

Peggy Lyles<\/font><\/a> from <\/font>To Hear the Rain<\/em><\/font><\/a> (Brooks Books, 2002) <\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font>Full moon by her bed<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>my daughter asks<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>the meaning of death<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\n

The stone church quiet<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>after the funeral bell —<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>deepening snowfall<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

\n <\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

autumn evening–<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>yellow leaves cover<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>the plot reserved for m<\/font><\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n


\nRebecca Lilly<\/font><\/a> – <\/font><\/font>Shadwell Hills<\/em><\/font><\/a> (Birch Brook Press, 2002)<\/em> <\/font><\/p>\n

“Autumn evening” — <\/font>A New Resonance 2<\/em><\/font><\/strong><\/font><\/a>; Modern Haiku<\/em> XXX:2<\/font><\/p>\n

\"window<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n


\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As SCOTUSBlog noted yesterday, Gonzales v. Oregon was the first time Chief Justice John Roberts has dissented to a Court decision. The Chief joined the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, and did not write separately. The case upheld an Oregon law that permits doctors to prescribe medica- tions in certain assisted suicide situations. [See NYT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-17O","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4328","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4328"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4328\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12823,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4328\/revisions\/12823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}