AS someone who struggles daily to meet the standards set by the Catholic faith I espouse I shudder whenever I hear the phrase “devout Catholic”. To me it suggests that there are different levels of Catholicism and sometimes I wonder if this is something I should be aspiring towards. I know hundreds of my fellow Catholics who live good holy decent lives but would run a mile rather than have the adjective devout attached to them.
Devout seems to be a word which others attach to Catholicism as opposed to other world religions. You seldom hear of devout Anglicans or devout Jews.
So when I hear of Donald Trump's nomination Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court ("Election risk in hearings fight over Trump’s Supreme Court nominee", The Herald, September 28) described in the media as a devout Catholic I have to carefully consider what that means. She opposes abortion. Yes, but so does the vast majority of Catholics. She would claim to believe in the sanctity of life and again so do most Catholics but it is here that I may find issue with the lady.
For me sanctity of life covers from the womb to the grave and all parts in between. You cannot cover yourself in the cloak of a single aspect of life and think that negates your indifference or even support for causes which should be alien to your faith. Seeking to protect the child dying of hunger in Yemen assisted by your government is just as relevant as seeking to protect the child in the womb. In protecting sanctity of life you cannot condone or even encourage the blatant misuse of guns. If you choose to become a judge you should undertake to fairly interpret the law no matter how repugnant.
As I only know of the lady through the media, perhaps I am misjudging her. I hope so. However, I would hope that whoever takes the vacancy on the Supreme Court does so as a devout upholder of the law and not as a pawn in a flawed political contest.
George Kay, Burntisland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel