John Roberts the Catholic

John Roberts the Catholic

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare law affectionately referred to by some as “Hellcare Obamacare.” Chief Justice John Roberts , what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. “]issued the opinion of the court”Mr..

Much time has been dedicated to the treatment of the legality and/or constitutionality of Obamacare and the SCOTUS ruling, but I have read very little addressing the moral implications regarding the spiritual well-being of the Chief Justice.

In 2005, during the confirmation hearing for John Roberts, the blogosphere buzzed about the prospects of finally tipping the scale in a conservative direction by adding another orthodox Catholic to the bench.  George Neumayr wrote about Roberts’ parish, as being a Maryland parish that heterodox Catholics would regard as an outpost of traditional Catholicism.  Msgr. Vaghi, the church’s pastor, according to Neumayr, is a staunch advocate for the Church’s teaching on sanctity of human life:

“After all, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion, there have been over 44 million abortions, young children dying before they had the opportunity to enjoy life outside the womb as we enjoy life,” he wrote. “Our church is always, and will always, be on the side of life, life from conception until natural death. And it is precisely because Jesus took on life, took on flesh and ennobled it by becoming man and like us in everything but sin that we value human life so much, that we were born in His image and reborn in Christ Jesus.”

For those who may have forgotten, Obamacare provides for taxpayer funded abortion.  There is a slew of other morally egregious provisions within the law, but taxpayer funded abortion requires the compulsory involvement in what a majority of Americans believe to be morally reprehensible.  The magisterium of the Catholic Church is clear:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[74]
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.  Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[75]

What an interesting turn our country has taken, that in 2005, President Obama had already publicly declared his support for infanticide, while John Roberts was in position to claim the title of conservative Catholic savior for a new moral republic.  The two personae could not have been more polarized.  Oddly enough the two have a more than one common thread.

In 2012, Obama claims he never listened to his pastor, while CJChief Justice, to the lay personRoberts proved he didn’t listen to his pastor either in upholding the former’s full fledged attack on the unborn and forcing the involvement of every American.  In addition, he not only affirmed the precedent that abortion is constitutional, but he furthered Roe by ruling that using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion is unconstitutional as well.  His judicial opinion, which violated every aspect of the dignity of human life, should be condemned nationwide, no matter how supposedly wonderful it was for the Commerce ClauseWell, we expanded abortion, but at least we got the commerce clause! Get me a shovel. Any law enacted at the destruction of innocent human life is an abomination..  Besides, CJ Roberts had plenty of constitutional clearance to strike down the law.  Just read the dissenting opinion to figure that out.  For the short version, read the 10th Amendment.

John Roberts is a misguided man, the deciding vote between upholding and striking down taxpayer funded abortion.  For the sake of his soul, we must pray for his repentance, as well as the repentance of all those, Catholic or not, who are involved in the promulgation of abortion.


  1. The Supreme Court consists of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. So much for Judeo-Christian values!

    Voted for Obamacare and the mandates allowing the HHS mandate to stand!

    Voted against Obamacare

  2. Is it possible that Roberts truly believes the law is a constitutional law, even though morally flawed? Is not his job to rule on the law’s constitutionality, not its morality? Is it possible that he was in fact showing that the law should be overturned by the congress because it is a bad law, and that it is not the place of the court to make law?

    • Ed,

      First, IF Roberts thinks the law is Constitutional, then he has no idea what he’s talking about.

      Second, for a Catholic, one is to follow God’s law first and man’s law second. If man’s law violates God’s law, Catholics are morally obligated to disobey. It is never permissible for a Catholic to commit moral evil, even if your job requires it. Even the Nuremberg trials explained that “just following orders” was not a legitimate defense for doing evil.

      Third, while it is the job of Congress to repeal laws, is it not also the job of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the law? In upholding the law, Roberts upheld that the aforementioned acts by government are perfectly allowable. Certainly the Congress can repeal laws the people don’t like, regardless of Constitutionality, but does not the SCOTUS rule on whether or not a law is constitutional? Constitutional and unpopular are not the same thing. Prohibition was Constitutional, yet Congress repealed it because it was unpopular.

      Finally, any law which is immoral or unjust is no law at all. Roberts is morally obligated to strike it down because of it’s immoral provisions.

      “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” ~Matthew 10:28.

      • Matt writes: “First, IF Roberts thinks the law is Constitutional, then he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

        So, do you think Roberts has no idea what he’s talking about (and that you understand the constitution better than he) or do you think that Roberts upheld the law even though he believes it unconstitutional?

        • I believe that Roberts either has no idea what he’s talking about, or he has an agenda that’s he’s trying to push.

          It would not be the first time that I, or countless other Americans, knew the Constitution better than a Supreme Court Justice.

          Take Griswold v. Connecticut where the right to contraception was found in “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution. Or perhaps Roe v. Wade where the Supreme Court overturned abortion prohibitions and limitations in all 50 states.

          A more stark example of abuse by the Supreme Court is Dred Scott v. Sandford wherein the Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent brought to the U.S. and held as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. Citizens.

          The court is chock full of bad decisions and poor understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution was written simply, so the average person could read and understand it. Constitutional understanding isn’t a form of gnosticism, but takes only the ability to read in context to understand what the founders envisioned.

        • As one example that I know more about the Constitution regarding Obamacare than Roberts is the plain and simple fact that Article 1 Section 7:

          “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

          Obamacare originated in the Senate. Roberts didn’t even mention it. He’s either ignorant or malicious.

          • Matt:
            Before I comment further, I thought I should introduce myself. I am a very recent convert to the Catholic faith, and discovered your blog a few months ago, and have been following it as I read my way into the Church. I was attracted to your blog partly because you and others are in Shreveport, where I lived and ministered several years in a Presbyterian Church.
            My wife also taught at Loyola Prep for a few years. We were both excited to learn that apparently there are now religion teachers at Loyola of more orthodox conviction than was the case 20-25 years ago.
            I have benefitted from your blog, and hope to continue to do so. I really don’t know much about catholic moral theology, so I realize I have a lot to learn about how catholics in public office, such as court justices, are to make decisions. Perhaps Roberts has failed miserably. But it seems you are proposing to know the man’s heart. And, in charity, I hope his mind, or his heart, is not as confused or corrupt as you seem to think.
            Grace and peace.

          • Ed,

            Welcome to Truth and Charity. It’s always good to have new readers, especially new converts to the faith.

            God is eternal, while life on Earth is fleeting. Therefore we are to hold obedience to God at a higher priority than any earthly authority. All Catholics. regardless of occupation, political affiliation, sexual preference, etc., is called to follow the same moral practices and oppose the same moral evils.

            I don’t presume to know John Roberts’ heart, but I can opine on whether his actions were in communion with Church teaching. I also don’t presume to know whether because of those actions, John Roberts will go to heaven or hell, as no human being has the ability to know such a thing (future tense).

            That being said, Roberts’ ruling was blatantly unconstitutional and had no basis or precedent for his ruling. So he either doesn’t know/believe/interpret the Constitution as it was intended, or he knows it and willingly ignored the Constitution to further an agenda, ala Justice Blackmun.

            There are some documents you could read to help you become more acquainted with Catholic teaching on public life.

            Gaudium et spes –

            Evangelium vitae –

            The Catechism of the Catholic Church –