ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: readselerttoo on February 13, 2016, 08:47:20 PM

Title: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: readselerttoo on February 13, 2016, 08:47:20 PM
A quote the NYT:   “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall,” he wrote. “. . . With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them — with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court — we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence."


Scalia had made this comment after the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. 

His opinions will be sadly missed.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on February 13, 2016, 11:25:39 PM
May his Memory be Eternal.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 14, 2016, 06:15:53 AM
For the repose of his soul and the safety of our republic.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 14, 2016, 04:13:56 PM
The LCMS comment:

"A STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT HARRISON ON THE DEATH OF JUSTICE SCALIA

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33).

We have received the news of the death of Justice Scalia with deep shock. On the moral issues, on which The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has taken a public stand (life, marriage and religious freedom), we and all creedal and biblically oriented Christians had no more stalwart friend on the Supreme Court than Justice Scalia. He articulated the voice of consistent rationality and unchanging natural law—the very voice and sentiment of the founders of this nation—in the face of progressivism on the court, which has left our nation morally depleted. Unfortunately the death of a great man is often a harbinger of worse things to come. Can the Supreme Court harm this nation even more than it has? Are 57 million abortions not enough? Unfortunately, we may well fall to even deeper depths of degradation.

Spare us, O God, from what we deserve, and give this nation leaders and justices who recognize the unchanging and rational truth of natural law, which accords with the Ten Commandments. And grant us justices and leaders who recognize, as did our founders, the great benefit of a religious citizenry for the well-being of all. Amen."

https://www.facebook.com/TheLCMS/photos/a.146764088579.113654.6058843579/10153590010698580/?type=3&theater

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 14, 2016, 04:25:09 PM
Great statement, thanks Pr. K...
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 14, 2016, 05:07:42 PM
I can understand why Synod President Harrison would shy away from commending Justice Scalia's soul to God. I'm less clear as to why he would not speak of his spiritual destiny, his character as a baptized child of God and member of Christ's body, even less why he offers no sympathy or even recognition to his widow Maureen and his children.

The message seemed more oriented to how Justice Scalia's death may affect political maneuvering, and especially "us" vs. that horrible legal progressivism to which the late Justice was opposed. I find the message disappointing, though not as callous as the CBS interviewers last night at the debate, who hastened with all possible speed to use this sudden death to fan the fire at the debate.

I don't know if the Catholic bishops will say anything official about Justice Scalia's death, but if they do, I'll try to pass it along.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 14, 2016, 05:20:36 PM
That's why I posted it, Fr. Slusser. I found Harrison's comment, shall we say, interesting.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 14, 2016, 06:42:44 PM
For a prominent type of "confessional Lutherans," including supporters of the Synod President, we all must remember, the late justice was in thrall to the Anti-Christ.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 14, 2016, 08:53:26 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 14, 2016, 10:14:03 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 14, 2016, 11:16:51 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael

I'm in agreement with Fr. Slusser here, precisely because this is an open conversation board with a diverse group of interactors and readers.  "Why should it bother anyone on this board" is a question by a board moderator that makes me wonder if the moderator understands the value of the ecumenical composition of this board.

As to the substance, being an LCMS pastor, my first instinct is always to extend condolences to the family and loved ones along with the hope of the Resurrection. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 14, 2016, 11:30:08 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael


When debating legal questions, Justice Scalia's tongue and pen could be sharp.  But in the midst of debate, you'd note the sparkle in his eye.  He loved the exercise of debating against smart people, both because it was important and because for him it was fun.


Here's a link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/14/read-the-statements-of-supreme-court-justices-on-antonin-scalias-death/) to the statements released by Justice Scalia's colleagues on the Court.  Most of them go far beyond the necessary niceness demanded by protocol and good manners.  Here are a couple excerpts.


Justice Ginsburg:

"From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argue bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh."

Justice Sotomayor:

"I will miss him and the dimming of his special light is a great loss for me."

If only all our leaders could wrestle together both with seriousness of purpose and with the magnanimity toward one another.

Rest eternal grant to Antonin Scalia, and let light perpetual shine upon him.  Thanks for his decades of public service and for all the ways in which he enriched the life of his family, friends, and colleagues. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on February 14, 2016, 11:42:48 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael

I'm in agreement with Fr. Slusser here, precisely because this is an open conversation board with a diverse group of interactors and readers.  "Why should it bother anyone on this board" is a question by a board moderator that makes me wonder if the moderator understands the value of the ecumenical composition of this board.

As to the substance, being an LCMS pastor, my first instinct is always to extend condolences to the family and loved ones along with the hope of the Resurrection. 

Dave Benke

The chief Pastor of a Synod or Diocese should, above all, be pastoral in public statements at times of national bereavement.

The former episcopal leader of one of my former affiliations has been frequently, and deservedly, criticized through the years for becoming primarily political and ultimately little more than a partisan cheerleader for the left.

President Harrison should be careful, lest St. Louis appear as merely the conservative version of Chicago.

St. Louis has so much more to offer.  Don't trade its riches for the pottage of partisanship.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 14, 2016, 11:44:21 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael

I'm in agreement with Fr. Slusser here, precisely because this is an open conversation board with a diverse group of interactors and readers.  "Why should it bother anyone on this board" is a question by a board moderator that makes me wonder if the moderator understands the value of the ecumenical composition of this board.

As to the substance, being an LCMS pastor, my first instinct is always to extend condolences to the family and loved ones along with the hope of the Resurrection. 

Dave Benke


Not only that, I am quite certain that Justice Scalia would quibble with the statement's characterizations of his work.  He did not think it right for a judge to decide cases on the basis of the judge's personal convictions.  He would not have been comfortable with the notion that he was a friend to any particular views on moral issues.  Law of course embodies moral judgments.  But those judgments, he believed, were largely reserved to the political branches of the state and federal governments and to the people individually.  The courts' job is simply to enforce the laws in a manner consistent with the text's original public meaning. 


Legal scholars and others will debate for decades over the propriety of his approach to jurisprudence and over whether he applied that approach consistently in all his own work.  He always enjoyed that debate.  But I think that if presented the LCMS press release, he would likely have jotted off a good-natured corrective.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 14, 2016, 11:50:14 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael
If the concern is propriety I guess I was reacting to the instant impulse to nitpick somebody else's expression of honor to the deceased. In the immediate aftermath of news, President Harrison called the deceased a great friend of the LCMS in his role on the SCOTUS and a stalwart champion of issues dear to all Christians. As I said, it might have been nice had the statement offered condolences to the survivors. But is it really worth complaining about? Every pastor knows how deflating it is when somebody majoring in the minors offers up some petty criticism of something happening at church. I imagine it is the same with synodical presidents. Here is a guy engaged in the public square and being ecumenical about it; the alpb is the last place I'd expect to see him getting criticized for it.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 15, 2016, 12:03:37 AM
Not only that, I am quite certain that Justice Scalia would quibble with the statement's characterizations of his work.  He did not think it right for a judge to decide cases on the basis of the judge's personal convictions.  He would not have been comfortable with the notion that he was a friend to any particular views on moral issues.  Law of course embodies moral judgments.  But those judgments, he believed, were largely reserved to the political branches of the state and federal governments and to the people individually.  The courts' job is simply to enforce the laws in a manner consistent with the text's original public meaning. 

Legal scholars and others will debate for decades over the propriety of his approach to jurisprudence and over whether he applied that approach consistently in all his own work.  He always enjoyed that debate.  But I think that if presented the LCMS press release, he would likely have jotted off a good-natured corrective.
Excellent observation. I think he tried honestly not to be on anyone's political team; and I'm sure that when confronted with a conflict between the Constitution and his personal moral and political convictions he gave priority to the Constitution as he understood it.

He also wrote some of the most wonderful prose I've read.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 15, 2016, 03:40:38 AM
Peter writes:
In the immediate aftermath of news, President Harrison called the deceased a great friend of the LCMS in his role on the SCOTUS and a stalwart champion of issues dear to all Christians.

I comment:
If this is, indeed, what the Synod President said, then the statement is simply false. There are a significant number of Christians who do not consider the late justice their champion.

The Synod President's statement asked God to:
... give this nation leaders and justices who recognize the unchanging and rational truth of natural law, which accords with the Ten Commandments. And grant us justices and leaders who recognize, as did our founders, the great benefit of a religious citizenry for the well-being of all. Amen."
I comment:
That statement has enough goopy theological/constitutional/civic/historical/social and political wiggle-waggles to make a bowl of jello look like a piece of granite.
   I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.
   On the more positive side, this humble correspondent was always impressed and pleased with the way Justice Scalia wrote and his clear and forceful use of the English language. I could dislike what he said, while recognizing the art and skill with which he said it.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 15, 2016, 08:45:57 AM
   I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.

I'd like to read the quote in context.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Steven W Bohler on February 15, 2016, 08:50:00 AM
Here's an article which references it: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/11/justice-antonin-scalia-rails-again-about-flag-burning-weirdoes/
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 15, 2016, 09:00:21 AM
Here's an article which references it: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/11/justice-antonin-scalia-rails-again-about-flag-burning-weirdoes/

Thank you.  So the quote:

"Scalia said as a jurist who believes in a pure texualist reading of the Constitution, he has made some tough calls in his career, especially in free-speech cases where his vote went against his personal principles.

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag,” Scalia said. “But I am not king.”"

Interestingly, nowhere does he suggest he is sorry they have these rights.  Only that if it were solely up to him, people like the Gregory Lee Johnson would be in jail.  If one reads carefully and critically, one might see that Justice Scalia, far from lamenting the existence of such rights, is praising them.  They are a check against the tyranny of the majority.  "But I am not king."  Nor does he wish to be.

Context is quite important.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 15, 2016, 09:16:44 AM
Thank you, Pastor Bohler, for giving the context of the comment by the late justice.
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and would limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
No, Mr. Garner, I do not see his remarks as "praising" the right to protest. How can they be when he would limit those rights?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 15, 2016, 09:19:30 AM
   I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.


You've got the story just wrong enough to flip its meaning entirely. 


First, citing the text and context of the First Amendment, Scalia firmly and consistently supported freedom of speech.  That was true both when "liberals" wanted to limit speech (e.g., Citizens United) and when "conservatives" wanted to do so (e.g., Texas v. Johnson and US v. Eichman (cases striking down laws that criminalized mistreatment of the American flag)).  Scalia argued that his position of free speech was driven, not by his personal views on the subject, but by the law.  The law impelled his judicial decisions whether or not he liked the outcome. 


The Court -- as he put it, nine old, non-diverse people, all of whom had graduated from one of just two law schools -- ought not act as a legislature, imposing its moral judgments on the country.  Instead, the Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and other laws enacted by the political branches of the federal and state governments.  In so doing, the Court was permitting legislatures -- through the election process, all accountable to the people -- to make the moral judgments the infuse the law.

In making this point, Scalia (probably more than once and almost certainly in jest) said that if he were king, he would imprison the sandal-wearing protestors who burned the flag.  But neither he nor any other judge is a king or queen.  And he would say that that is a very good thing.  In other words, he was not at all sorry that he was unable to imprison protestors.  Instead, he was grateful that under our system -- under our Bill of Rights -- nobody has the unchecked power to do such a thing.  Thanks be to God, the law does not permit it.


Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: SomeoneWrites on February 15, 2016, 09:23:30 AM
Thank you, Pastor Bohler, for giving the context of the comment by the late justice.
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and would limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
No, Mr. Garner, I do not see his remarks as "praising" the right to protest. How can they be when he would limit those rights?

Strange, the article gave me more respect for him.  I read it as "He doesn't like people desecrating something he treasures, but because he respects the rule of the constitution, he judges accordingly."  The point is, is he WOULDN'T limit those right, and in fact didn't, because his value of the law is held higher than his personal proclivities.  I'm sure there's a number of positions one could take on the matter though. 

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 15, 2016, 10:04:21 AM
For some Justice Scalia was a conservative ipso facto that made him a bad man, or at least a bad jurist.  It just remains to show how his writings can be interpreted to demonstrate it.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Steven W Bohler on February 15, 2016, 10:20:26 AM
Thank you, Pastor Bohler, for giving the context of the comment by the late justice.
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and would limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
No, Mr. Garner, I do not see his remarks as "praising" the right to protest. How can they be when he would limit those rights?

Strange, the article gave me more respect for him.  I read it as "He doesn't like people desecrating something he treasures, but because he respects the rule of the constitution, he judges accordingly."  The point is, is he WOULDN'T limit those right, and in fact didn't, because his value of the law is held higher than his personal proclivities.  I'm sure there's a number of positions one could take on the matter though.

I am quoting this because I have Rev. Austin on my "Ignore" list and so only see his posts when they are quoted by another. 

Rev. Austin,

Justice Scalia did NOT say he regretted that those rights were given.  Or that they were given to people he did not like (or to those whose views were different than his).  Rather, he said that if it were up to him (which it was not -- that is the whole point of his comment!) no one -- not just only certain persons -- would have such rights as to burn the American flag.  But SINCE THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THESE RIGHTS he is bound to find accordingly, despite his personal views.  Your post shows either a complete lack of understanding of what Justice Scalia said (and meant) or a malicious twisting of his words to fit your own agenda.  Neither of which is a good thing, in case you could not figure it out.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 15, 2016, 10:21:56 AM
Peter writes:
In the immediate aftermath of news, President Harrison called the deceased a great friend of the LCMS in his role on the SCOTUS and a stalwart champion of issues dear to all Christians.

I comment:
If this is, indeed, what the Synod President said, then the statement is simply false. There are a significant number of Christians who do not consider the late justice their champion.

The Synod President's statement asked God to:
... give this nation leaders and justices who recognize the unchanging and rational truth of natural law, which accords with the Ten Commandments. And grant us justices and leaders who recognize, as did our founders, the great benefit of a religious citizenry for the well-being of all. Amen."
I comment:
That statement has enough goopy theological/constitutional/civic/historical/social and political wiggle-waggles to make a bowl of jello look like a piece of granite.
   I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.
   On the more positive side, this humble correspondent was always impressed and pleased with the way Justice Scalia wrote and his clear and forceful use of the English language. I could dislike what he said, while recognizing the art and skill with which he said it.
Nobody gets things exactly wrong with your degree of precision. A statement by the justice of how glad he is that people have rights despite his personal preference is taken by you to mean he is sorry they have those rights.

The sanctity of human life is an issue dear to all Christians. That you dwell in the goofy sect of liberal Protestantism is your problem.

That you find a church leader praying for devout secular leaders per Luther's catechism (and in the case of a nation led by the people, a devout citizenry) to be such goopy wiggle-waggle is a further comment on you and your church, not President Harrison. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 15, 2016, 10:37:30 AM
Thank you, Pastor Bohler, for giving the context of the comment by the late justice.
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and would limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
No, Mr. Garner, I do not see his remarks as "praising" the right to protest. How can they be when he would limit those rights?

You apparently presume that the will to see something punished does, and ought, simultaneously confer the power to so punish.

By contrast, Justice Scalia made clear that his personal wish to punish others does not give him the legal or moral right to execute such a punishment, since we are a nation of laws and he, as a Supreme Court justice, is bound by the Constitution.  Perhaps this is a case where the psychological phenomenon known as transference is at play on your end.  That is, were you a Supreme Court justice, perhaps you would feel unconstrained by the Constitution and the law and thus act to do that which you would like to do.  Justice Scalia, to his credit, does feel constrained to refrain from acting where the Constitution limits his authority to act.  Good for him.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 15, 2016, 10:39:41 AM
Thank you, Pastor Bohler, for giving the context of the comment by the late justice.
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and would limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
No, Mr. Garner, I do not see his remarks as "praising" the right to protest. How can they be when he would limit those rights?

Strange, the article gave me more respect for him.  I read it as "He doesn't like people desecrating something he treasures, but because he respects the rule of the constitution, he judges accordingly."  The point is, is he WOULDN'T limit those right, and in fact didn't, because his value of the law is held higher than his personal proclivities.  I'm sure there's a number of positions one could take on the matter though.

I am quoting this because I have Rev. Austin on my "Ignore" list and so only see his posts when they are quoted by another. 

Rev. Austin,

Justice Scalia did NOT say he regretted that those rights were given.  Or that they were given to people he did not like (or to those whose views were different than his).  Rather, he said that if it were up to him (which it was not -- that is the whole point of his comment!) no one -- not just only certain persons -- would have such rights as to burn the American flag.  But SINCE THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THESE RIGHTS he is bound to find accordingly, despite his personal views.  Your post shows either a complete lack of understanding of what Justice Scalia said (and meant) or a malicious twisting of his words to fit your own agenda.  Neither of which is a good thing, in case you could not figure it out.

Steve,

I think what we see manifested after the death of Scalia is the progressive and somewhat fascist view that one's personal beliefs better come out of ignorance and up to speed with the progressive view and, if one doesn't, it is quite sad and, if necessary, the progressive will use the means necessary to change one's views. Note my comment about the MSNBC spot about the ignorant folk who actually think that their children belong to them. Note the recent campus demonstrations in which violence was advocated as well as abolition of the 1st Amendment.

Compare this to Scalia's view of applying the Constitution to legal issues and vehemently disagreeing with his liberal colleagues. Yet he was a very close personal friend of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and a hunting buddy with Justice Kagan.

Too many haters...
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 15, 2016, 10:44:04 AM
For some Justice Scalia was a conservative ipso facto that made him a bad man, or at least a bad jurist.  It just remains to show how his writings can be interpreted to demonstrate it.
For others, that ipso facto made him a good man, or at least a good jurist. They will praise him for having been on the right side.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: mariemeyer on February 15, 2016, 10:47:16 AM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael


Agree.

Marie
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: mariemeyer on February 15, 2016, 11:03:57 AM
Justice Ginsburg has written a moving tribute to Justice Scalia..  They shared an interest in the opera and spwent New Year's Eve together for many years.

 In a tribute to Scalia as an interlocutor, a fellow opera lover — including a reference to the opera Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions, which debuted in 2015 — and a "best buddy"  Justice Ginsburg writes....

"Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: 'We are different, we are one,' different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend."
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 15, 2016, 11:11:45 AM
For some Justice Scalia was a conservative ipso facto that made him a bad man, or at least a bad jurist.  It just remains to show how his writings can be interpreted to demonstrate it.
For others, that ipso facto made him a good man, or at least a good jurist. They will praise him for having been on the right side.

Peace,
Michael


Much of the media and much of the public views the Court primarily in political terms -- as a policy-making body.  In reporting on decisions, news outlets often report that the Court favored or opposed some policy when in fact the Court did no such  thing, instead simply interpreting the law (which individual justices may or may not have "favored").


Even high-end media make this kind of mistake.  The lead headline in yesterday's Washington Post -- in bold at the very top of the front page -- "Supreme Court conservative dismayed liberals."  The accompanying article, by the Post's Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes, was good.  (I subscribe to the Post and find its reporting generally to be very good.)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 15, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
Justice Ginsburg has written a moving tribute to Justice Scalia..  They shared an interest in the opera and spwent New Year's Eve together for many years.

 In a tribute to Scalia as an interlocutor, a fellow opera lover — including a reference to the opera Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions, which debuted in 2015 — and a "best buddy"  Justice Ginsburg writes....

"Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: 'We are different, we are one,' different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend."

Thanks for posting this, Marie.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: JEdwards on February 15, 2016, 12:07:47 PM
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and twould limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
Are you not aware, Charles, that in the case referenced in these comments, Justice Scalia WAS in the majority - joining Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court that burning the American flag is speech protected by the First Amendment?  The vote was 5-4, so he did not join the majority for strategic reasons. He really did have the power to put Mr. Johnson in jail, but instead demonstrated his respect for the Constitution.

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 15, 2016, 12:14:40 PM
My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and twould limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).
Are you not aware, Charles, that in the case referenced in these comments, Justice Scalia WAS in the majority - joining Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court that burning the American flag is speech protected by the First Amendment?  The vote was 5-4, so he did not join the majority for strategic reasons. He really did have the power to put Mr. Johnson in jail, but instead demonstrated his respect for the Constitution.

Peace,
Jon

Apparently he was not aware.

Here is a fantastic article about Justice Scalia by David Axelrod.  It completely belies the impression Pastor Austin apparently has of the man, and the jurist.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html?sr=fbpol021416david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia0759PMStoryLink&linkId=21262477
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: George Erdner on February 15, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
   I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.

I'd like to read the quote in context.

It bothers me that some people are entitled to wear a clerical collar, but I am not one with the authority to change that.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 15, 2016, 02:04:57 PM
The Clerical Collar:

When I attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis from 1964 to 1968,
none of the seminarians wore clerical collars to their class rooms.
Amazingly, some of the professors wore clerical collars when they
taught in the class room:  Dr. A.C. Piepkorn,  Dr. Donald Deffner,
Prof. George Hoyer were the only ones that I recall.

However, there were some classy professors who had the gift of sartorial
splendor: Dr. Robert Preus with his herringbone sport coats, Prof. William
Danker in Hart Schaffner Marx suits, Dr. Robert Bertram in button down
collar shirts and a dark blue blazer....just to name a few.

Bottom Line:  A clerical collar is adiaphoria for the parish pastor.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 15, 2016, 02:37:52 PM
Well, Peter, if you wish to declare that the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" presumably including the ELCA, the church wherein I and some few others here dwell, is not Christian;  I respectfully request that you get the hell off this discussion board.  I am truly sick of hearing your condemnations declaring that those of us in this "goofy sect" do not care about human life simply because we do not accept your view on abortions.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 15, 2016, 02:55:11 PM
Well, Peter, if you wish to declare that the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" presumably including the ELCA, the church wherein I and some few others here dwell, is not Christian;  I respectfully request that you get the hell off this discussion board.  I am truly sick of hearing your condemnations declaring that those of us in this "goofy sect" do not care about human life simply because we do not accept your view on abortions.
Well, Charles, would you please quote where Peter said that you or the ELCA were not Christian?  Or does calling your church affiliation a "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" count as equivalent to denying your Christianity?  If so does saying (oh so respectfully as befits speaking about the President of a Lutheran church body) that something our Synodical President wrote "That statement has enough goopy theological/constitutional/civic/historical/social and political wiggle-waggles to make a bowl of jello look like a piece of granite." count as denying that he is Christian.

You are very sensitive to perceived slights, and very good at dishing them out.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: George Erdner on February 15, 2016, 03:17:29 PM
The Clerical Collar:

When I attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis from 1964 to 1968,
none of the seminarians wore clerical collars to their class rooms.
Amazingly, some of the professors wore clerical collars when they
taught in the class room:  Dr. A.C. Piepkorn,  Dr. Donald Deffner,
Prof. George Hoyer were the only ones that I recall.

However, there were some classy professors who had the gift of sartorial
splendor: Dr. Robert Preus with his herringbone sport coats, Prof. William
Danker in Hart Schaffner Marx suits, Dr. Robert Bertram in button down
collar shirts and a dark blue blazer....just to name a few.

Bottom Line:  A clerical collar is adiaphoria for the parish pastor.

No, "entitled to wear a clerical collar" is a metaphor describing any ordained member of the clergy.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 15, 2016, 03:23:53 PM
Well, Peter, if you wish to declare that the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" presumably including the ELCA, the church wherein I and some few others here dwell, is not Christian;  I respectfully request that you get the hell off this discussion board.  I am truly sick of hearing your condemnations declaring that those of us in this "goofy sect" do not care about human life simply because we do not accept your view on abortions.
See, that didn't seem like a respectful request to me, but at any rate rest assured I know many, many members of the ELCA and other mainline bodies whom I am glad to number among my Christian friends. That having been said, I don't care what you are truly sick of. If you think it should be legal to dismember unborn babies, you don't care about the sanctity of life.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 15, 2016, 04:02:42 PM
The Clerical Collar:

When I attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis from 1964 to 1968,
none of the seminarians wore clerical collars to their class rooms.
Amazingly, some of the professors wore clerical collars when they
taught in the class room:  Dr. A.C. Piepkorn,  Dr. Donald Deffner,
Prof. George Hoyer were the only ones that I recall.

However, there were some classy professors who had the gift of sartorial
splendor: Dr. Robert Preus with his herringbone sport coats, Prof. William
Danker in Hart Schaffner Marx suits, Dr. Robert Bertram in button down
collar shirts and a dark blue blazer....just to name a few.

Bottom Line:  A clerical collar is adiaphoria for the parish pastor.
Flash forward a few years to 1974.  I was a senior at the Senior College at the time of the Great Walkout and the funeral for CSL.  When Seminex seminarians came to Ft. Wayne and give us Pre-Sem students the benefit of their great insights into the theological issues of the day, they almost invariably wore their clerical collars.  What they had done in class, I do not know.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 15, 2016, 04:51:46 PM
Pastor Fienen asks why I think Peter has erred and maligned millions of us. Here's why.
Peter writes:
A statement by the justice of how glad he is that people have rights despite his personal preference is taken by you to mean he is sorry they have those rights.
I comment:
Well, for heaven's sake! Am I not to conclude that he would not "prefer" to have his religious, personal and judicial preference (that the protesters could be banned)? "Not prefer" can, in sensible conversation, equal "sorry." And BTW, he never said he was "glad" people had those rights he dislikes. He just (reluctantly, in my reading) admitted that they had them.

Peter writes:
The sanctity of human life is an issue dear to all Christians. That you dwell in the goofy sect of liberal Protestantism is your problem.
I comment:
In simple reading (people here like to do that, right?) the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" is set over against "all Christians." Sounds insulting and not very inclusive to me. In clear apposition is "Christian" and "liberal Protestantism"(that "goofy" non-christian "sect).

Peter writes:
That you find a church leader praying for devout secular leaders per Luther's catechism (and in the case of a nation led by the people, a devout citizenry) to be such goopy wiggle-waggle is a further comment on you and your church, not President Harrison. 
I comment:
No, it is not the call to prayer that bothers me (and apparently some others here). It is those other words.

Peter continues:
See, that didn't seem like a respectful request to me, but at any rate rest assured I know many, many members of the ELCA and other mainline bodies whom I am glad to number among my Christian friends.
I comment:
But, Peter! They are with me in that body of millions and millions of Christians sharing complex and nuanced views on abortions, led by a teaching statement that does not call every abortion murder. They did not leave the ELCA when we adopted that statement.

Peter writes:
That having been said, I don't care what you are truly sick of. If you think it should be legal to dismember unborn babies, you don't care about the sanctity of life.
I comment:
And if you continue to insist that the only way to care about the "sanctity of life" and the only "Christian" view is that a human person exists the minute sperm meets egg then I have my own assessment of who is "sectarian," whose "church," or whose "fellowship" stands on its own, abrogating to itself all certainty on the issue at hand.
There is no other way to interpret your words, Peter. You say that of us who support the current abortion legislation, who do not want to see it overturned; those of us who understand that a woman, her husband/partner, and most likely their pastor can in good faith and conscience decide to terminate a pregnancy under those laws do not care about human life and are not Christian.
If that is not your view (since you contend that I never get you right), then just say, "That is not my view." 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 15, 2016, 05:12:20 PM
And it is time again to remind myself (and perhaps others) where I am and what it is to be in this forum.
Of the roughly 60 people with more than 1,000 postings, about seven are members of the ELCA, and two or three of those are in serious or total opposition to the ELCA on certain subjects.
Among the Missourians are some hard-liners, a couple of them as eager to pot-shot certain other Missourians as they are to denounce the rest of us. Moderator Peter is in a class ("sect"?) by himself.
Pastor Stoffregen is frequently maligned, made fun of and his postings made the subject of ridicule. (He remains incredibly patient.) A couple of those who make a point of not reading my comments nonetheless take opportunities to level insults or denunciations, even to the point of making fun of my vocation as ELCA pastor.
Recently a few more ELCA voices seem to have departed this forum. They join some who left in disgust a few years ago (expressing the disgust privately, so go ahead and said I got it wrong.)
That's the situation here. Something to think about. Once a staunch, eager, contributing supporter of ALPB, I am wondering whether today's ALPB is anything that I or anyone in the ELCA should be participating in and supporting.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 15, 2016, 05:48:03 PM
And it is time again to remind myself (and perhaps others) where I am and what it is to be in this forum.
Of the roughly 60 people with more than 1,000 postings, about seven are members of the ELCA, and two or three of those are in serious or total opposition to the ELCA on certain subjects.
Among the Missourians are some hard-liners, a couple of them as eager to pot-shot certain other Missourians as they are to denounce the rest of us. Moderator Peter is in a class ("sect"?) by himself.
Pastor Stoffregen is frequently maligned, made fun of and his postings made the subject of ridicule. (He remains incredibly patient.) A couple of those who make a point of not reading my comments nonetheless take opportunities to level insults or denunciations, even to the point of making fun of my vocation as ELCA pastor.
Recently a few more ELCA voices seem to have departed this forum. They join some who left in disgust a few years ago (expressing the disgust privately, so go ahead and said I got it wrong.)
That's the situation here. Something to think about. Once a staunch, eager, contributing supporter of ALPB, I am wondering whether today's ALPB is anything that I or anyone in the ELCA should be participating in and supporting.
i think you are the only one who regularly and predictably posts about what a bad forum this is. Inexplicably, you visit it every single day as though under some sort of compulsion. And you are outraged when anyone finds your posts to be of the quality you ascribe to the letter put out by the president of the LCMS. Too bad for you. I have been describing liberal Protestantism as essentially one unified sect in this forum for probably ten years or more. It is a perfectly mainstream opinion, too.

I never said anything about a fertilized egg from the moment of conception. I said if you think it should be legal to dismember an unborn baby then you do not care about the sanctity of life. I stand by that statement as self-evidently true.

What you referred to as wiggle-waggle was simple a prayer for the first article gift of devout rulers and good government, including a devout electorate. Whatever problem you have with that is your problem, not anyone else's.

I will defer to Brian S. as to whether there is no other way to interpret my words. If he says it is so, then I will have achieved a linguistic first, a superhuman feat of clarity not even the Spirit-inspired authors of holy Scripture could manage. But since you obviously misinterpreted Justice Scalia and then doubled down on your error when several people pointed out you got it wrong, I won't worry about your interpretation of my words.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: JEdwards on February 15, 2016, 05:51:46 PM
abrogating to itself all certainty on the issue at hand.
"That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

Jon (arrogating to myself Inigo Montoya's line from The Princess Bride.)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 15, 2016, 06:37:14 PM
Well, for heaven's sake! Am I not to conclude that he would not "prefer" to have his religious, personal and judicial preference (that the protesters could be banned)? "Not prefer" can, in sensible conversation, equal "sorry." And BTW, he never said he was "glad" people had those rights he dislikes. He just (reluctantly, in my reading) admitted that they had them.

Your reading comprehension is abominable. Either that or you would rather slander your neighbor than be honest. I'm assuming the former for charity's sake.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: RevG on February 15, 2016, 08:21:59 PM
While it might have been nice for the press release to offer condolences to the survivors I don't think that was the point. It was directed to LCMS members, not the Scalia family. It focuses, therefore, on how Scalia was a stalwart friend of the LCMS on the issues related to his role on the court and who was a great man whose loss wil be keenly felt. I read plenty of articles and press releases about the death of Richard Neuhaus that didn't focus on condolences but rather on the effect his death would have on the pro-life movement. I didn't take offense, and I'd be stunned if anyone in the Scalia family takes offense at Harrison's words. And if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother anyone on this board?
It's the first reaction, Pr. Speckhard. It's not necessary to wait until a person is buried to talk about how his death will affect your political interests, but I thought this haste was tacky. Had his body even been returned to Washington? What was so time sensitive that SP Harrison had to rush his reaction out? Do LCMS members have a short attention span? I haven't noticed that.

I doubt if anyone in the Scalia family will know what Harrison wrote, or care. Everyone will acknowledge that he has been a great jurist. Even his opponents will, I expect, concede the fact. But his death is first a human and a Christian fact, and should be treated as such by spiritual leaders.

YMOV

Peace,
Michael
If the concern is propriety I guess I was reacting to the instant impulse to nitpick somebody else's expression of honor to the deceased. In the immediate aftermath of news, President Harrison called the deceased a great friend of the LCMS in his role on the SCOTUS and a stalwart champion of issues dear to all Christians. As I said, it might have been nice had the statement offered condolences to the survivors. But is it really worth complaining about? Every pastor knows how deflating it is when somebody majoring in the minors offers up some petty criticism of something happening at church. I imagine it is the same with synodical presidents. Here is a guy engaged in the public square and being ecumenical about it; the alpb is the last place I'd expect to see him getting criticized for it.

Sure we all know about petty criticisms but his language isn't engaging or persuasive.  It lacks nuance and is incredibly polarizing.  What person on the opposite end of the spectrum is going to want to dialogue with someone who writes in such a manner?  I fail to sense an ecumenical spirit, let alone a spirit that would resonate with that of the ALPB. What such a writing does is it rallies those who agree with it and pushes further away those who disagree with it.  President Harrison has often claimed that he approaches his work pastorally but that's where I and other pastors sense a disconnect.  For example, I would never write such a thing to the congregation I serve because invariably it would alienate some.  Not because of a pro-life stance but because there are places where faithful Christians can legitimately disagree with Scalia.   One can applaud the efforts of such a person without turning into a rant against progressivism.  Scalia was a fascinating Justice standing for originalism but while he was pro-life he also had opinions that some conservative Christians may even find problematic like his thoughts on Brown v. Board of Ed.  What's more, not everything about progressivism is bad, there are good things that have come from such a political philosophy just like there are good things that have come from originalism. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 15, 2016, 08:38:30 PM
How is it that in other arenas of discussion, some of them quite contentious, my comments are received, sometimes accepted, sometimes disputed, and my ability to discuss intelligently and understand those with whom I contend is not in question?
   How is it that it is only here in the ALPB forum, dominated by a particular faction in the LCMS or populated by those whose ideological bell dings with Pavlovian predictability when the LCMS gong sends out its D-Flat ding-dong that my ability to hear, speak and understand is considered weak tea?
    You guys hate it when I say this but it's true: Over the years I have been in serious, sometimes public discussion with priests, clergy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and prelates of various faith groups and I have laid out their words for people to read, sometimes with my own analysis of those words.
   I have also sat with state legislators, some members of Congress and a couple of Senators in discussion and for publication. Not to mention listening and talking with 15 or 20 town councils, boards of education, zoning boards, police departments and courts. For a while, I had to manage such things in a couple of languages, usually, but not always, with the help of interpreters and translators.
   So how is it that only here, in this forum, and particularly with words spread upon these "pages" by Peter, that I seem to be deemed illiterate? Might it by that I am the only one here contending that certain words and concepts are just stupid and stinky?
   But we digress. And I tire. Carry on. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 15, 2016, 09:27:07 PM
How is it that in other arenas of discussion, some of them quite contentious, my comments are received, sometimes accepted, sometimes disputed, and my ability to discuss intelligently and understand those with whom I contend is not in question? ...

...But we digress. And I tire. Carry on.

Apparently you write differently on this forum from elsewhere.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 15, 2016, 10:37:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG6SCDUiFZs
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 16, 2016, 07:58:05 AM
How is it that in other arenas of discussion, some of them quite contentious, my comments are received, sometimes accepted, sometimes disputed, and my ability to discuss intelligently and understand those with whom I contend is not in question?
   How is it that it is only here in the ALPB forum, dominated by a particular faction in the LCMS or populated by those whose ideological bell dings with Pavlovian predictability when the LCMS gong sends out its D-Flat ding-dong that my ability to hear, speak and understand is considered weak tea?
    You guys hate it when I say this but it's true: Over the years I have been in serious, sometimes public discussion with priests, clergy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and prelates of various faith groups and I have laid out their words for people to read, sometimes with my own analysis of those words.
   I have also sat with state legislators, some members of Congress and a couple of Senators in discussion and for publication. Not to mention listening and talking with 15 or 20 town councils, boards of education, zoning boards, police departments and courts. For a while, I had to manage such things in a couple of languages, usually, but not always, with the help of interpreters and translators.
   So how is it that only here, in this forum, and particularly with words spread upon these "pages" by Peter, that I seem to be deemed illiterate? Might it by that I am the only one here contending that certain words and concepts are just stupid and stinky?
   But we digress. And I tire. Carry on.

It's easy -- you took a quote where a recently deceased Supreme Court justice made the point that the Constitution constrains justices to act only within the authority it grants them, and turned it into a claim that said justice actually thought it unfortunate that this was the case.

When that justice might be the ONLY justice on the Court in the past 40 years or so who actually took that Constitutional restraint seriously.

That's how.  You betray an inability to read and comprehend that was too obvious to ignore.  Either that or, as I said, you are willing to lie in order to slander a brother in Christ. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 16, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist concerning the U.S.  Constitution.
He interpreted it according to the original meaning of the words in this
document.  Obviously, his voice was one of letting the Constitution interpret
itself.  May his contribution to the Supreme Court be remembered as one
who respected the Constitution and did not try to revise it.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 16, 2016, 09:37:38 AM
There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: George Erdner on February 16, 2016, 09:45:06 AM
Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist concerning the U.S.  Constitution.
He interpreted it according to the original meaning of the words in this
document.  Obviously, his voice was one of letting the Constitution interpret
itself.  May his contribution to the Supreme Court be remembered as one
who respected the Constitution and did not try to revise it.

I find that a great many Christians treat the Bible the same way.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 16, 2016, 10:02:13 AM
I like Justice Scalia's self description expressed as, "originalist." Commentators on both sides of our deplorable polarization have posited that his "originalist" philosophy has penetrated the judicial community and will be his enduring legacy.

Correspondingly, that is the way I view the Lutheran Symbols and, I think, the way the Missouri Synod constitution views them as well. Maybe Justice Scalia's influence will seep into American Lutheran identity so that we can see our Confessions with their positive affirmations as well as their limits. (No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 16, 2016, 10:06:33 AM
(No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   :)

Peace, JOHN
What was so hasty about it?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 16, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
I like Justice Scalia's self description expressed as, "originalist." Commentators on both sides of our deplorable polarization have posited that his "originalist" philosophy has penetrated the judicial community and will be his enduring legacy.

Correspondingly, that is the way I view the Lutheran Symbols and, I think, the way the Missouri Synod constitution views them as well. Maybe Justice Scalia's influence will seep into American Lutheran identity so that we can see our Confessions with their positive affirmations as well as their limits. (No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   :)

Peace, JOHN


To fill in a bit more color, Scalia believed that the courts should apply a law in accordance with the text's "original meaning" or "original public meaning."  This judicial philosophy is based on the premise that the best way to understand a law's meaning is to understand each word or phrase as people generally understood the word or phrase at the time of the law's enactment.


He generally did not like to rely on legislative history or other secondary material when interpreting a law.  He argued that this was an unreliable method for discerning "original intent" because different legislators (and lobbyists) might have very different reasons for supporting the same statute.  If a judge uses legislative history (which is not law) in seeking to understand "original intent," that judge is almost certainly will give emphasis to one reason underlying legislative support for the law at the expense of others.  This would lead to misapplication of the law.  The original public meaning of text therefore should be the primary (if not exclusive) focus of the courts, whether the law at issue is the Constitution or something else.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: JEdwards on February 16, 2016, 10:39:09 AM
He generally did not like to rely on legislative history or other secondary material when interpreting a law.  He argued that this was an unreliable method for discerning "original intent" because different legislators (and lobbyists) might have very different reasons for supporting the same statute.  If a judge uses legislative history (which is not law) in seeking to understand "original intent," that judge is almost certainly will give emphasis to one reason underlying legislative support for the law at the expense of others.  This would lead to misapplication of the law.  The original public meaning of text therefore should be the primary (if not exclusive) focus of the courts, whether the law at issue is the Constitution or something else.
It was not uncommon to read, in the report of a Court decision, something along the lines of "Justice X delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Y, and by Justice Scalia except as to footnote 21."  Invariably, footnote 21 would make a reference to legislative history.

Jon
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 16, 2016, 01:31:51 PM
There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

That's right.  But it's not what justices do.  Or at least it's not what they are supposed to do.

Justice Scalia's dissents are legendary, but one of his greatest was PGA v. Martin, where he excoriated the 7 member majority, using both wit and ridicule.  I think my favorite argument is where he discussed the august Court weighing the prominent and heart-rending issue of whether walking is as essential to golf as having a 3-inch cup or 18 holes.  His parting shot:

"Complaints about this case are not "properly directed to Congress," ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court's Kafkaesque determination that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are 'places of public accommodation' to the competing athletes, and the athletes themselves 'customers' of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable 'essential' and 'nonessential' rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one's lack of ability (or at least no one's lack of ability so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and 'everybody was finally equal.' K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997)."

The Court meddling where it ought not is what Scalia spent a career fighting against.  As a friend said the night he passed, "a life dedicated to answering a simple question: who decides?"
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Jim Butler on February 16, 2016, 01:42:55 PM
(No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   :)

Peace, JOHN
What was so hasty about it?

And what was "unlawful"?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 16, 2016, 01:52:23 PM
There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

That's right.  But it's not what justices do.  Or at least it's not what they are supposed to do.

Justice Scalia's dissents are legendary, but one of his greatest was PGA v. Martin, where he excoriated the 7 member majority, using both wit and ridicule.  I think my favorite argument is where he discussed the august Court weighing the prominent and heart-rending issue of whether walking is as essential to golf as having a 3-inch cup or 18 holes.  His parting shot:

"Complaints about this case are not "properly directed to Congress," ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court's Kafkaesque determination that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are 'places of public accommodation' to the competing athletes, and the athletes themselves 'customers' of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable 'essential' and 'nonessential' rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one's lack of ability (or at least no one's lack of ability so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and 'everybody was finally equal.' K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997)."

The Court meddling where it ought not is what Scalia spent a career fighting against.  As a friend said the night he passed, "a life dedicated to answering a simple question: who decides?"
Yeah, that's a classic! Did Justice Scalia think that certiorari was improvidently granted? Or did he think that the Americans with Disabilities Act (if that was the statute at issue) should have required a different outcome?

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 16, 2016, 01:59:34 PM
I see no statement yet from the USCCB, but the Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, issued this brief statement:
Quote
Saturday, February 13, 2016

It was with great sorrow that I learned today of the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I admired his strong and unwavering faith in the Lord and his dedication to serving our country by upholding the U.S. Constitution. Each year at our cathedral, the Red Mass is celebrated on the Sunday before the beginning of the Supreme Court’s annual term to invoke God’s blessings on those responsible for the administration of justice. Justice Scalia attended each year. I offer my prayers and sympathy to his wife Maureen and their family and ask the Lord to grant him eternal rest.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 16, 2016, 02:29:51 PM
There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

That's right.  But it's not what justices do.  Or at least it's not what they are supposed to do.

Justice Scalia's dissents are legendary, but one of his greatest was PGA v. Martin, where he excoriated the 7 member majority, using both wit and ridicule.  I think my favorite argument is where he discussed the august Court weighing the prominent and heart-rending issue of whether walking is as essential to golf as having a 3-inch cup or 18 holes.  His parting shot:

"Complaints about this case are not "properly directed to Congress," ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court's Kafkaesque determination that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are 'places of public accommodation' to the competing athletes, and the athletes themselves 'customers' of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable 'essential' and 'nonessential' rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one's lack of ability (or at least no one's lack of ability so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and 'everybody was finally equal.' K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997)."

The Court meddling where it ought not is what Scalia spent a career fighting against.  As a friend said the night he passed, "a life dedicated to answering a simple question: who decides?"
Yeah, that's a classic! Did Justice Scalia think that certiorari was improvidently granted? Or did he think that the Americans with Disabilities Act (if that was the statute at issue) should have required a different outcome?

Peace,
Michael


It's hard to say whether Justice Scalia supported the grant of certiorari.  The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.  Thus, Scalia obviously disagreed with the ruling below.  However, that is not the standard for supporting certiorari.  More often than not, even when a justice disagrees with a ruling below, that justice opposes certiorari.  The Supreme Court takes relatively few cases and is careful in selecting them.  Thus, even though he disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's ruling, it's possible that Justice Scalia would have been content to let it stand.


Here's a link to (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-24.ZD.html) Justice Scalia's dissent, which begins as follows:

In my view today’s opinion exercises a benevolent compassion that the law does not place it within our power to impose. The judgment distorts the text of Title III, the structure of the ADA, and common sense. I respectfully dissent.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 16, 2016, 02:36:31 PM
(No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   :)

Peace, JOHN
What was so hasty about it?

And what was "unlawful"?

HASTY:  There were only a couple of months from the "pronouncement" on social media to suspension.

UNLAWFUL: Not based on the "original constitution" (that is, The Book of Concord).

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 16, 2016, 02:46:47 PM
There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

That's right.  But it's not what justices do.  Or at least it's not what they are supposed to do.

Justice Scalia's dissents are legendary, but one of his greatest was PGA v. Martin, where he excoriated the 7 member majority, using both wit and ridicule.  I think my favorite argument is where he discussed the august Court weighing the prominent and heart-rending issue of whether walking is as essential to golf as having a 3-inch cup or 18 holes.  His parting shot:

"Complaints about this case are not "properly directed to Congress," ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court's Kafkaesque determination that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are 'places of public accommodation' to the competing athletes, and the athletes themselves 'customers' of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable 'essential' and 'nonessential' rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one's lack of ability (or at least no one's lack of ability so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and 'everybody was finally equal.' K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997)."

The Court meddling where it ought not is what Scalia spent a career fighting against.  As a friend said the night he passed, "a life dedicated to answering a simple question: who decides?"
Yeah, that's a classic! Did Justice Scalia think that certiorari was improvidently granted? Or did he think that the Americans with Disabilities Act (if that was the statute at issue) should have required a different outcome?

Peace,
Michael

I don't know about cert, but he definitely thought the ADA not only did not compel that result, but in fact foreclosed it.  The essence of it is this -- the Court melded two different provisions, the first dealing with employers and protecting employees and the second with public accommodations and protecting customers, and used the "sweeping purpose of the Act" to fashion a remedy.  The Court found that Martin was a "customer" of the PGA.  Scalia said Martin was an independent contractor, and finding him to be a "customer" was absurd (he was right about that).  He said since he is not an employee, the ADA doesn't cover him under Title I, and since he is not a customer the ADA doesn't cover him under Title III.

But the better argument, and the one I cite above, is that even if one found the ADA ought to apply, how does the Court fashion a remedy to determine what is and is not essential to a game with made up rules that are completely arbitrary?  It's not the same as saying one must be able to see in order to be a motorcycle cop, but it's also not quite the same as saying one can still be a desk cop if one must sit at the desk in a wheelchair.  That's because there are specific duties required of those jobs, and the Court can fashion a remedy by determining whether a reasonable accommodation is possible.

But in this case, what is a "reasonable accommodation" for a professional golfer?  Let's say a woman wants to play on the mens' tour.  Can she demand to hit from the ladies tees?  May she use an otherwise illegal club?  May she play with a handicap of, say, 10 strokes?  How is that even judicially determinable?  As Scalia said, his opinion was not that the PGA should not fashion a remedy for Martin.  He noted even professional golfers differ widely on that question.  The question was whether the ADA compels the PGA to fashion such a remedy, and barring one, whether the Court therefore could mandate one.  He answered that, properly IMHO, in the negative.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 16, 2016, 03:33:45 PM
(No more Matthew Becker like hasty and unlawful expulsions, please)   :)

Peace, JOHN
What was so hasty about it?

And what was "unlawful"?

HASTY:  There were only a couple of months from the "pronouncement" on social media to suspension.

UNLAWFUL: Not based on the "original constitution" (that is, The Book of Concord).

Peace, JOHN
Whom does the "constitution" (i.e. the BoC) entrust to determine whether a teaching or ruling is based on the BoC? Is anyone who says he is teaching according to the Confessions thereby automatically correct about that? Is it possible to remove anyone from the clergy roster if they personally believe their teaching is in accord with the BoC. Because I am closely connected to two former LCMS pastors who swore/swear that nothing they taught contradicted the Confessions while the LCMS concluded otherwise, and in both cases my guess is that you would agree with the LCMS. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 16, 2016, 03:35:16 PM
Scotusblog has marshaled the 20th century data about Supreme Court appointments in election years:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/)

In short, there is no precedent for letting a seat remain vacant in an election year.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 16, 2016, 03:57:35 PM
Scotusblog has marshaled the 20th century data about Supreme Court appointments in election years:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/)

In short, there is no precedent for letting a seat remain vacant in an election year.

Peace,
Michael


My very strong bet is that such a precedent will exist by the end of 2016.  The Senate obviously is not bound by this kind of precedent.  Moreover, if they think they need it, comments by Democratic senators at the end of the Bush years provide rhetorical cover to Republicans who want to "give the voters a voice" in determining the Court's direction.[size=78%]  [/size]



Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 16, 2016, 04:52:50 PM
Whom does the "constitution" (i.e. the BoC) entrust to determine whether a teaching or ruling is based on the BoC? Is anyone who says he is teaching according to the Confessions thereby automatically correct about that? Is it possible to remove anyone from the clergy roster if they personally believe their teaching is in accord with the BoC. Because I am closely connected to two former LCMS pastors who swore/swear that nothing they taught contradicted the Confessions while the LCMS concluded otherwise, and in both cases my guess is that you would agree with the LCMS.

Justice Scalia would probably say, then amend your constitution. If he wouldn't I will say it, "Amend the constitution."

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 16, 2016, 05:02:06 PM
Whom does the "constitution" (i.e. the BoC) entrust to determine whether a teaching or ruling is based on the BoC? Is anyone who says he is teaching according to the Confessions thereby automatically correct about that? Is it possible to remove anyone from the clergy roster if they personally believe their teaching is in accord with the BoC. Because I am closely connected to two former LCMS pastors who swore/swear that nothing they taught contradicted the Confessions while the LCMS concluded otherwise, and in both cases my guess is that you would agree with the LCMS.

Justice Scalia would probably say, then amend your constitution. If he wouldn't I will say it, "Amend the constitution."

Peace, JOHN
Who? How? How will we know it is sufficiently amended? The simple fact is that if it is not the responsibility of the church to determine if a particular doctrine or practice is in accord with the confessions, then they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Paul Bretscher is in very poor health, but for years after he published Christianity's Unknown Gospel he maintained that nothing in his teaching contradicted the Confessions. Nothing can be done about that by your understanding. It would always be unlawful to remove him because according to him he didn't violate the confessions.

You might say the case is different because Bretscher actually did violate the Confessions while Becker did not. But that is your opinion, not the opinion of the LCMS.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Steven W Bohler on February 16, 2016, 05:04:19 PM
Whom does the "constitution" (i.e. the BoC) entrust to determine whether a teaching or ruling is based on the BoC? Is anyone who says he is teaching according to the Confessions thereby automatically correct about that? Is it possible to remove anyone from the clergy roster if they personally believe their teaching is in accord with the BoC. Because I am closely connected to two former LCMS pastors who swore/swear that nothing they taught contradicted the Confessions while the LCMS concluded otherwise, and in both cases my guess is that you would agree with the LCMS.

Justice Scalia would probably say, then amend your constitution. If he wouldn't I will say it, "Amend the constitution."

Peace, JOHN

Don't the bylaws, in effect, do that?  Well, not amend it but explain how it is to be applied.  And weren't the bylaws followed?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 16, 2016, 05:17:19 PM
Here is a link to a fascinating review of Scalia's concept of originalism.   http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism?intcid=mod-yml
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James S. Rustad on February 16, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
Justice Scalia was a strict constructionist concerning the U.S.  Constitution.
He interpreted it according to the original meaning of the words in this
document.  Obviously, his voice was one of letting the Constitution interpret
itself.  May his contribution to the Supreme Court be remembered as one
who respected the Constitution and did not try to revise it.
There is nothing wrong with trying to "revise" the constitution. That is what amendments do.

And again you persist in misreading and misrepresenting another's comments.  There is a HUGE difference in attempting to "revise" the constitution by re-interpreting the language to mean what you want and amending it.  The twisting of other's comments in this thread decreases my respect for you even more than any of your previous comments have.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 16, 2016, 10:21:06 PM
So we have the Constitution. And we have amendments to it, those amendments having exactly the same "standing" in law as the Constitution itself. If that is not "revising" the Constitution, then what in the name of Aunt Gertie's goat is it?
Furthermore, "interpretations" of the constitution by the courts have varied.
But I despair... BFN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 16, 2016, 10:40:14 PM
Amendments do indeed revise the Constiturion, but the process for amending the Constitution is very involved and takes a great many people agreeing to accomplish it.  It is not something for one person or even nine to do on their own hook.  It is not something that even a Supreme Court justice or several to decide one day that they'd rather have the Constitution read differently.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 17, 2016, 07:13:32 AM
Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Team Hesse on February 17, 2016, 08:00:45 AM
Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf)

It's scary, really scary.


Yep, that is how it is with fear mongers.....right or LEFT


Lou
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: David Garner on February 17, 2016, 08:29:27 AM
Here is a link to a fascinating review of Scalia's concept of originalism.   http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism?intcid=mod-yml

Fascinating primarily for the author's ignorance of history and his fawning claim that the Stevens dissent in Heller promoted any sort of "originalism." 

The majority opinion in Heller is replete with citations to scholarly work.  The dissent, to the contrary, reads like a high school term paper.  My favorite part is where Stevens uses the fact that several states included the right to "defense of self and state" in their state Constitutions as evidence that the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution…….well…….doesn't include "self and state."  It reminds me of the conspiracy theorist who, confronted with evidence that refutes their claims, says "well, YEAH man, that's what you'd EXPECT man!"
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 17, 2016, 08:37:25 AM
Quote:

Who? How? How will we know it is sufficiently amended? The simple fact is that if it is not the responsibility of the church to determine if a particular doctrine or practice is in accord with the confessions, then they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Paul Bretscher is in very poor health, but for years after he published Christianity's Unknown Gospel he maintained that nothing in his teaching contradicted the Confessions. Nothing can be done about that by your understanding. It would always be unlawful to remove him because according to him he didn't violate the confessions.

You might say the case is different because Bretscher actually did violate the Confessions while Becker did not. But that is your opinion, not the opinion of the LCMS.

Quote:

Don't the bylaws, in effect, do that?  Well, not amend it but explain how it is to be applied.  And weren't the bylaws followed?

Quote:

Here is a link to a fascinating review of Scalia's concept of originalism.   http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism?intcid=mod-yml
_______________________________

I can understand how "originalism" has the weakness of seeming to have been "overcome by (later) events. Some will believe that the original intent cannot help us cope with present day problems. Much has happened politically since 1787. Much has happened ecclesiastically since 1580.

I grant that they have a point but I will still hold to my preference for originalism in holding both the U.S. Constititution and the Lutheran Confessions. I hope that abortions will cease and that there will be no more Matthew Beckers.   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: FrPeters on February 17, 2016, 08:46:53 AM
Quote
I can understand how "originalism" has the weakness of seeming to have been "overcome by (later) events. Some will believe that the original intent cannot help us cope with present day problems. Much has happened politically since 1787.

Scalia's own reply is that of course things have happened that were not foreseen or imagined by the original framers within the context of the original meaning of their words.  But you cannot impose the understanding or the events of the moment onto the fabric of this document.  That is why the framers provided a legislative branch and if there is a new circumstance, pass a law.  And that is why the balance between states and federal powers exist.  The court was not created to legislate and this is exactly what it has done.  It was created to decide cases.  BTW Scalia also opined against an elitism that was and still is manifest in that all current justices are grads of Harvard or Yale and come from the Northeast.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 17, 2016, 09:10:25 AM
Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.
How is that scary? Some Mormon guy calling in to a radion show thinks God is giving America a wake-up call and wants to elect Ted Cruz. So what? Why does that frighten you?

For someone who often wonders aloud what the Prophet Amos would say to America you seem awfully down on the idea of God giving a rip about laws. Is the idea that America needs a wakeup call you find scary? Ted Cruz as president? That many Christians and people of other odd religions often interpret events in their personal lives as well as national news as signs from God? I'll bet a fair number of people in your own congregation do that. I get that you disagree with Ted Cruz's political platform, but to be scared by the fact that some talk shows host suports Cruz is bit paranoid.

And at any rate, the quote you just posted falls far short of the Messianic promises associated with Barack Obama in 2008.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Terry W Culler on February 17, 2016, 10:00:56 AM
Wing nuts? Really!!!! How about lefties who suffer from delusions of intellectual adequacy?  This board seems to be verging on hatred rather than love.  Let's stop it folks.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 17, 2016, 10:27:08 AM
Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.

You pulled that from a far-left web site dedicated to the use of fear-mongering to discredit Republicans. Here's how the site defines its purpose:

"We hope that by shedding light on the activities of right-wing organizations, we can expose the risks that their extreme and intolerant agendas present to our country. We do not endorse the views of groups that we report on."

What's scary is that you don't seek different perspectives but persistently post from the left-wing equivalent of freerepublic.com or brietbart.com.  Doing that will not enhance your credibility.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: George Erdner on February 17, 2016, 02:07:39 PM
What's scary is that you don't seek different perspectives but persistently post from the left-wing equivalent of freerepublic.com or brietbart.com.  Doing that will not enhance your credibility.

The sad thing is that the so-called "objective" news sources are anything but. If anyone depends only on the established news media for information, then that person will be woefully ignorant. The mainstream media has returned to being what the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers were back at the prior turn of the century. Using a motto of "all the news that fits, we print", they all pander to the lowest common denominator in going for non-offensive stories that will yield them the highest ratings so that they can maximize the sale of product commercials. Watching (or reading) any of the mainstream news sources reveals that their decisions on what stories to cover is based on which stories will attract the biggest mass audience, nothing else. The debates are packaged as a new form of reality TV show. I'm surprised that the debates are on CNN or Fox. They would be more appropriate on E! or MTV.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 17, 2016, 03:42:58 PM
New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431474/new-york-times-1987-party-won-senate-has-every-right-resist
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: SomeoneWrites on February 17, 2016, 04:01:04 PM
New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431474/new-york-times-1987-party-won-senate-has-every-right-resist

Definitely read more.  The actual editorial seems to imply something different then what I'm hearing the National Review imply
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 17, 2016, 04:04:14 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 17, 2016, 04:32:08 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)


This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 17, 2016, 04:44:13 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 17, 2016, 04:53:42 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?


Celebrate his life on earth, God's gifts to others through him, and his eternal home with Christ.  Aren't all Christian funerals at least in part celebrations?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 17, 2016, 05:03:17 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?

Celebrate his life on earth, God's gifts to others through him, and his eternal home with Christ.  Aren't all Christian funerals at least in part celebrations?

No, they're funerals.

"As a not-as-young pastor now in the early years of the twenty-first
century, I still hear at funerals things said about the dead Christian that
are not true. The problem is that I hear them said by the pastor, as part of
his sermon. These are things which, strictly speaking, are not true. More
importantly, these are things which, theologically speaking, are not true.
And so we ought not to say them. Because ultimately, statements such as
the ones highlighted below downplay the real meaning of death, and they
diminish the great hope of resurrection that is God’s answer in Christ to
the reality of death. The following are things that should not be said at
funerals...

Third: “John has gone to his eternal home.” This utterance contains
an echo of a Biblical way of speaking, but it is terribly misleading. In 2
Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is dealing with the prospect of death, the hope of
the resurrection body, and how these matters interrelate. His primary
hope concerns the resurrection body that will be given to him and to all
believers “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4;
cf. 1 Cor. 15:53f.). Until he puts on that dwelling, Paul and all believers
groan, along with the whole creation (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. Rom. 8:22-23). The gift
of the Holy Spirit, however, is the “bridge” between this mortal existence
and that immortal, resurrection life–the Spirit is the “guarantee” of final
inheritance and life (2 Cor. 5:5).

So, life is lived in this tension. Until the gift of the resurrection body,
one must be “home” somewhere and “away” from something. Currently,
Paul is “home in the body” and “away from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6). If he had
to choose, he would rather be “away from the body” and “home with the
Lord,” something that he elsewhere describes as an existence that is “far
better” (Phil. 1:23). But this does not mean that the bodiless existence of
the soul is “our eternal home.” If one were going to specify the location of
our “eternal home,” the closest approximation would be where we are
now—in God’s creation! As creatures, this creation is rightly our home.
Spoiled by sin, however, the creation awaits renewal—our eternal home is
in need of renovation, purging, restoration. A Christian who dies most
certainly is, in some important sense, “at home with the Lord.” But at
death, the believer does not go to his or her eternal home—not yet...

Fifth: “This is not a funeral—it’s Craig’s victory celebration!” This is
perhaps the most objectionable of all—and it is patently false, as even
many unbelievers instinctively know. It is true, of course, that when a
Christian dies, he is now “out of danger”—he can no longer be tempted. In
addition, when tragic and prolonged physical or mental suffering precede
the death of a Christian, there can be great relief and release for both the
deceased and for those who loved him and have cared for him.

But who could even imagine saying that a funeral is a “victory” when
it’s the funeral of a child, or of a young mother, or of a colleague and friend
struck down in the midst of a vigorous and productive life? As a matter of
fact, the death even of a Christian is always and only a sign that sin has
not yet fully been abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; the last enemy has
not yet gone under His feet. As a matter of fact, death (which does not
separate the deceased from the love of God in Christ) does separate the
deceased from those who love him. Funerals are not victory celebrations.
They are funerals. The grief is, in light of the Gospel, never grief without
hope (1 Thess. 4:13). But it is still, ever and rightly—grief. For only on the
Last Day will death be swallowed up in...victory (1 Cor. 15:54)."

Jeffrey A. Gibbs
Five Things You Should Not Say at Funerals
CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 (vol 29, number 4)

http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2003.pdf
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 17, 2016, 05:17:22 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384
From Scotusblog again:

Quote
Ceremonies for Justice Scalia

The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral has been set for next Saturday; in the meantime, his body will lie in repose in the Supreme Court’s Great Hall, just outside the courtroom where he sat for three decades.   The Court’s bench in front of where Justice Scalia sat, and his high black chair, are now draped in black in his memory.

The public may visit the Great Hall on Friday from 10:30 a.m. until 8 p.m.  Prior to that time, there will be a private ceremony at the Court beginning at 9:30 a.m.

A funeral Mass will be celebrated at 11 a.m. Saturday at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, a massive Roman Catholic edifice in northeast Washington.   The Mass will be open to friends and family members, the Court said. He will be buried in a private ceremony at a gravesite not identified by the Court.

The non-attendance of everyone else appears to be a directed verdict.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 17, 2016, 05:22:26 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?

Celebrate his life on earth, God's gifts to others through him, and his eternal home with Christ.  Aren't all Christian funerals at least in part celebrations?

No, they're funerals.

"As a not-as-young pastor now in the early years of the twenty-first
century, I still hear at funerals things said about the dead Christian that
are not true. The problem is that I hear them said by the pastor, as part of
his sermon. These are things which, strictly speaking, are not true. More
importantly, these are things which, theologically speaking, are not true.
And so we ought not to say them. Because ultimately, statements such as
the ones highlighted below downplay the real meaning of death, and they
diminish the great hope of resurrection that is God’s answer in Christ to
the reality of death. The following are things that should not be said at
funerals...

Third: “John has gone to his eternal home.” This utterance contains
an echo of a Biblical way of speaking, but it is terribly misleading. In 2
Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is dealing with the prospect of death, the hope of
the resurrection body, and how these matters interrelate. His primary
hope concerns the resurrection body that will be given to him and to all
believers “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4;
cf. 1 Cor. 15:53f.). Until he puts on that dwelling, Paul and all believers
groan, along with the whole creation (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. Rom. 8:22-23). The gift
of the Holy Spirit, however, is the “bridge” between this mortal existence
and that immortal, resurrection life–the Spirit is the “guarantee” of final
inheritance and life (2 Cor. 5:5).

So, life is lived in this tension. Until the gift of the resurrection body,
one must be “home” somewhere and “away” from something. Currently,
Paul is “home in the body” and “away from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6). If he had
to choose, he would rather be “away from the body” and “home with the
Lord,” something that he elsewhere describes as an existence that is “far
better” (Phil. 1:23). But this does not mean that the bodiless existence of
the soul is “our eternal home.” If one were going to specify the location of
our “eternal home,” the closest approximation would be where we are
now—in God’s creation! As creatures, this creation is rightly our home.
Spoiled by sin, however, the creation awaits renewal—our eternal home is
in need of renovation, purging, restoration. A Christian who dies most
certainly is, in some important sense, “at home with the Lord.” But at
death, the believer does not go to his or her eternal home—not yet...

Fifth: “This is not a funeral—it’s Craig’s victory celebration!” This is
perhaps the most objectionable of all—and it is patently false, as even
many unbelievers instinctively know. It is true, of course, that when a
Christian dies, he is now “out of danger”—he can no longer be tempted. In
addition, when tragic and prolonged physical or mental suffering precede
the death of a Christian, there can be great relief and release for both the
deceased and for those who loved him and have cared for him.

But who could even imagine saying that a funeral is a “victory” when
it’s the funeral of a child, or of a young mother, or of a colleague and friend
struck down in the midst of a vigorous and productive life? As a matter of
fact, the death even of a Christian is always and only a sign that sin has
not yet fully been abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; the last enemy has
not yet gone under His feet. As a matter of fact, death (which does not
separate the deceased from the love of God in Christ) does separate the
deceased from those who love him. Funerals are not victory celebrations.
They are funerals. The grief is, in light of the Gospel, never grief without
hope (1 Thess. 4:13). But it is still, ever and rightly—grief. For only on the
Last Day will death be swallowed up in...victory (1 Cor. 15:54)."

Jeffrey A. Gibbs
Five Things You Should Not Say at Funerals
CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2003 (vol 29, number 4)

http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2003.pdf (http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2003.pdf)


I get your point.  But the author oddly diminishes the focus on hope to nearly nothing, leaving nothing but despair-filled grief.  I would balance the two differently.  (And yes, the funeral for a 79-year-old such as Scalia is different in tone from the funeral of a child or young mother.)  We indeed live in the tension between now and not yet.  But the "not yet" is glorious indeed -- a hope and a victory to be celebrated.


In all events, I'll bet that the Scalia funeral places more emphasis on hope and celebration than you would prefer.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 17, 2016, 05:28:59 PM
But the author oddly diminishes the focus on hope to nearly nothing, leaving nothing but despair-filled grief. 

Hardly. Gibbs always focuses on the victory on the Last Day. That's what he calls "true biblical hope," the physical resurrection. See his earlier article, "Regaining Biblical Hope: Restoring the Prominence
of the Parousia."

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2001 (vol 27, number 4)

http://www.csl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/October-2001.pdf

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 17, 2016, 05:30:54 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)
From Scotusblog again:

Quote
Ceremonies for Justice Scalia

The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral has been set for next Saturday; in the meantime, his body will lie in repose in the Supreme Court’s Great Hall, just outside the courtroom where he sat for three decades.   The Court’s bench in front of where Justice Scalia sat, and his high black chair, are now draped in black in his memory.

The public may visit the Great Hall on Friday from 10:30 a.m. until 8 p.m.  Prior to that time, there will be a private ceremony at the Court beginning at 9:30 a.m.

A funeral Mass will be celebrated at 11 a.m. Saturday at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, a massive Roman Catholic edifice in northeast Washington.   The Mass will be open to friends and family members, the Court said. He will be buried in a private ceremony at a gravesite not identified by the Court.

The non-attendance of everyone else appears to be a directed verdict.

Peace,
Michael


Maybe.  The announcement interestingly did not say that an invitation is required or that the funeral is closed to the public.  (By contrast, the family and Court made abundantly clear that the burial service would be private.)  My guess is that anyone who considers himself or herself a friend could attend.  As you know, the Basilica is huge.  I believe that it is the largest Catholic church in North America.  So space is not likely to be a limiting factor.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Voelker on February 17, 2016, 06:00:50 PM
This piece from GetReligion (http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/2/17/think-pieces-on-justice-scalia-funeral-sermons-humility-and-the-first-amendment) contains an interesting letter from Scalia concerning funerals, and especially funeral sermons. Well worth a read.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 17, 2016, 06:16:32 PM
This piece from GetReligion (http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/2/17/think-pieces-on-justice-scalia-funeral-sermons-humility-and-the-first-amendment) contains an interesting letter from Scalia concerning funerals, and especially funeral sermons. Well worth a read.

Wonderful stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 17, 2016, 07:30:59 PM
Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: George Erdner on February 17, 2016, 09:05:47 PM
Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

They elected the current President in 2012, and liked what he was doing so much that they elected a new Senate in 2014 with a majority opposition to the President that they elected on 2012. I think that can be taken as an indication that the American people have changed their minds.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 18, 2016, 12:18:37 AM
Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

They elected the current President in 2012, and liked what he was doing so much that they elected a new Senate in 2014 with a majority opposition to the President that they elected on 2012. I think that can be taken as an indication that the American people have changed their minds.

Fine. Then let the Senate they elected do its job, which is to consider the nominees the President sends them. If they don't like his nominee, they can reject him/her. Either way, the point is that, contrary to Senator McConnell's posturing, the American people have expressed their voice. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they should now be mute until after the next election.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 18, 2016, 05:51:50 AM
And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 18, 2016, 06:04:11 AM
And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

I think that criticism of the current Senate majority is warranted as long as one realizes that the opposition engaged in the same maneuvering when the ball was in their possession. Listen to the vids of the two Senators from NY in 2007. Listening to Clinton lecture on appropriateness is like listening to her spouse excoriate others for infidelity.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: George Erdner on February 18, 2016, 07:55:49 AM
Yes, thanks, I was just about to post that myself.

On another matter: "Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote."

I was under the impression that the American people have already expressed their voice, when they elected the current President and the current Senate.

They elected the current President in 2012, and liked what he was doing so much that they elected a new Senate in 2014 with a majority opposition to the President that they elected on 2012. I think that can be taken as an indication that the American people have changed their minds.

Fine. Then let the Senate they elected do its job, which is to consider the nominees the President sends them. If they don't like his nominee, they can reject him/her. Either way, the point is that, contrary to Senator McConnell's posturing, the American people have expressed their voice. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they should now be mute until after the next election.

Rejecting unacceptable nominees is the Senate's job. As long as everyone remembers that the Senate has no obligation to automatically rubber stamp every nominee that the President submits, then I assume the Senate will do its job.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: FrPeters on February 18, 2016, 08:13:02 AM
Good grief... it's all politics.  The Dems have no moral high ground for they did in the past and would today be saying the same things as the Repubs if the shoe were on the other foot and the Repubs would be expressing moral outrage just like the Dems at the idea of not filling the vacancy.  There are few men of principle left in Washington and Scalia was surely one of them when he was there -- stalwart yet friendly, eloquent yet readable, with invective for all fools.  It is a snub for the Pres not to attend the funeral (unless the family said not to) and it is a political opportunity to direct the court that the Pres will not miss.  Scalia was not unfamiliar with it all but he himself did say he would be a fool if he were not disconcerted at the prospect of someone undoing what he had spent 30 years doing. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Voelker on February 18, 2016, 08:50:23 AM
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.
A curious example, given that they had every reason to "howl" at such antics. Especially curious when the possible repercussions of an unfettered New Deal, considering that the fettered New Deal was no great shakes (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409), are taken into account.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 18, 2016, 08:59:25 AM
I argued way upstream that President Harrison misconstrued Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy. This account illustrates the point.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/02/16501/ (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/02/16501/)

From The Account Of Scalia's Remarks:

In the lunch session, he was asked a question about his views on “natural law.” He said, wittily, that he practices “American law.” Natural law might well be something appropriately taken into account by legislatures but not by courts. Whatever he might think as a Catholic citizen was one thing; his role as a judge was another.

In illustrating this point, he used an example he has often used before. He would “no more hold” that states are required to ban abortions than he would hold that they are prohibited from banning abortions. The Constitution simply said nothing about the issue. It didn’t embrace his Catholic view of the humanity of the unborn any more than it embraced a constitutional right to kill the unborn.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 18, 2016, 09:07:05 AM
Good grief... it's all politics.  The Dems have no moral high ground for they did in the past and would today be saying the same things as the Repubs if the shoe were on the other foot and the Repubs would be expressing moral outrage just like the Dems at the idea of not filling the vacancy.  There are few men of principle left in Washington and Scalia was surely one of them when he was there -- stalwart yet friendly, eloquent yet readable, with invective for all fools.  It is a snub for the Pres not to attend the funeral (unless the family said not to) and it is a political opportunity to direct the court that the Pres will not miss.  Scalia was not unfamiliar with it all but he himself did say he would be a fool if he were not disconcerted at the prospect of someone undoing what he had spent 30 years doing.

I largely agree.  The Senate is fully within its right to withhold consent.  Whether it acts wisely or well in doing so is a purely political question.  In other words, the voters will decide, either rewarding senators for being stalwart or punishing them for their obstructionism. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 18, 2016, 09:15:32 AM
And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

I think that criticism of the current Senate majority is warranted as long as one realizes that the opposition engaged in the same maneuvering when the ball was in their possession. Listen to the vids of the two Senators from NY in 2007. Listening to Clinton lecture on appropriateness is like listening to her spouse excoriate others for infidelity.

Agreed.  I tend to chalk it up to Politician Alzheimer's.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 18, 2016, 10:39:36 AM
Rejecting unacceptable nominees is the Senate's job. As long as everyone remembers that the Senate has no obligation to automatically rubber stamp every nominee that the President submits, then I assume the Senate will do its job.


Yes, but neither are the Republicans to automatically oppose everyone that a democratic president nominates. Each nominee should be judged on their own worthiness to serve as a justice on the supreme court.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 18, 2016, 11:10:22 AM
There is no protocol or "custom" that says every president has to attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't happen. No big deal should be made of it.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: FrPeters on February 18, 2016, 11:12:19 AM
Quote
Yes, but neither are the Republicans to automatically oppose everyone that a democratic president nominates. Each nominee should be judged on their own worthiness to serve as a justice on the supreme court.

And they haven't... so we have Sotomayor and Kagan - neither of which fit the Repub list of top candidates.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 18, 2016, 11:14:40 AM
And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

I think that criticism of the current Senate majority is warranted as long as one realizes that the opposition engaged in the same maneuvering when the ball was in their possession. Listen to the vids of the two Senators from NY in 2007. Listening to Clinton lecture on appropriateness is like listening to her spouse excoriate others for infidelity.

No argument from me about that; I've always thought the Democrats started us down this road with the attacks on Judge Bork. But multiple wrongs don't make a right.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 18, 2016, 11:15:53 AM
Scalia was not unfamiliar with it all but he himself did say he would be a fool if he were not disconcerted at the prospect of someone undoing what he had spent 30 years doing.

Long-term pastors know this only too well.  :o
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 18, 2016, 11:17:36 AM
Actually, whether long-term or short-term, pastors should not expect everything they did in a parish to last forever.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 18, 2016, 11:22:15 AM
Actually, whether long-term or short-term, pastors should not expect everything they did in a parish to last forever.

I don't recall saying that they should expect that.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 18, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384)

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

Security will be high anyway.

"While Earnest has not said definitively what Obama’s plans are for Saturday, the expectation that the Bidens – and not the Obamas -- will represent the White House at the funeral was met with bipartisan criticism.

'Refusing to attend the funeral does more than insult the memory of a life-long public servant. It is a failure to perform a basic presidential duty. Obama has shirked his responsibility to all of us,' Charles Lipson, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, said in a column for Real Clear Politics Thursday.

It is rare for a sitting Supreme Court justice to die during any administration. But in recent history, the sitting president has attended these funerals.

George W. Bush attended the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005, and Dwight Eisenhower did the same for Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953.

Earnest would not offer details Wednesday on what the president’s plans are for Saturday.

Asked if he could rule out the possibility of golf, Earnest said, 'I don’t have a sense of what the president’s plans are for Saturday.' He said the White House would have 'some more details' about the president’s plans for Friday and Saturday later.

'The president obviously believes it’s important for the institution of the presidency to pay his respects to somebody who dedicated three decades of his life to the institution of the Supreme Court,' he added. 'And the president gave some pretty thoughtful words in discussing Justice Scalia’s service on the Supreme Court, not just Saturday night but also yesterday in his news conference. And Friday will be an important opportunity for the president and the first lady to pay their respects to Justice Scalia.'

Even from MSNBC, the decision raised eyebrows. 

Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC’s 'All In with Chris Hayes,' tweeted: 'Some amazing advice my mom gave me once: ‘If you’re wondering whether you should to go the funeral, you should go to the funeral.’'

Jeb Bush spokesman Tim Miller responded, 'Same.'

If Obama does not attend, the president also potentially risks angering Republicans whom he will need to help confirm his eventual nominee to succeed Scalia.

Los Angeles Times opinion writer Michael McGough raised this possibility in calling the decision a 'dumb political move.'

'By attending the funeral Obama would have underscored the importance of nonpartisanship when it comes to the court. That could only have helped him make the case that the Republican-controlled Senate has a duty to give fair consideration to the person he nominates to succeed Scalia,' he wrote."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/18/obama-faces-backlash-over-prospect-missing-scalia-funeral.html?intcmp=hpbt1
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on February 18, 2016, 01:49:31 PM
    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 18, 2016, 02:04:54 PM
    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.

"It is rare for a sitting Supreme Court justice to die during any administration. But in recent history, the sitting president has attended these funerals."

"However, attending a sitting Justice’s funeral is viewed by some as being completely different in significance. According to Townhall, this may be the first time in the last 65 years that a current president skipped the funeral of a sitting Justice, although early records are not completely clear. Scalia is the only justice to have died in office since Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who passed away in 2005. Bush attended Rehnquist’s funeral and said the eulogy. When Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson died in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower was photographed at his funeral."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/02/why-isnt-obama-attending-scalia-funeral-reason-president-supreme-court-justice-funeral-history-bush-rehnquist/

I see a significant distinction. Attending the funeral of a sitting justice is more than a manifestation of a personal relationship or respect. It's a respect for the office representiitive of one of the three branches of government.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 18, 2016, 02:09:11 PM
    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.
True.  And President Bill Clinton did not attend the funeral of Thurgood Marshall.  Vice President Gore did.

I haven't been able to find out if there was a (good) reason that Clinton did not attend the funeral.  (prior foreign travel commitment, logistics/security, etc).  What may be problematic for President Obama is if he is seen golfing locally within a 24 hour window around the funeral, which is in Washington, DC.  Or golfing elsewhere without another good reason to be traveling outside the capital.

At least it will be a problem for some people, if it turns out anything like that.  Those people are unlikely to include many of the punditry elite...although I am always prepared to be wrong and surprised.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 18, 2016, 02:18:25 PM
Those eagle-eyed people include folks who would criticize President Obama if he did attend the funeral. They would criticize the president if he ate a type of breakfast cereal they did not like.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Fletch on February 18, 2016, 02:20:02 PM
    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.
True.  And President Bill Clinton did not attend the funeral of Thurgood Marshall.  Vice President Gore did.

I haven't been able to find out if there was a (good) reason that Clinton did not attend the funeral.  (prior foreign travel commitment, logistics/security, etc).  What may be problematic for President Obama is if he is seen golfing locally within a 24 hour window around the funeral, which is in Washington, DC.  Or golfing elsewhere without another good reason to be traveling outside the capital.

At least it will be a problem for some people, if it turns out anything like that.  Those people are unlikely to include many of the punditry elite...although I am always prepared to be wrong and surprised.

Sterling Spatz

Perhaps he is taking advantage of Air Force One again.  Mere chicken feed.  https://www.youtube.com/embed/c1Q1qzfL9rE

... F
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 18, 2016, 02:38:49 PM
    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.

Don't confuse us with facts!
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 18, 2016, 02:45:49 PM
Those eagle-eyed people include folks who would criticize President Obama if he did attend the funeral. They would criticize the president if he ate a type of breakfast cereal they did not like.
I cannot deny that there will be people who criticize the president no matter what...even for doing the right thing.

Of course, I'm sure I could find people who will say it's no big deal the President Obama golfs so much--after all, so did George W. Bush.  Except of course, for the fact that he stopped golfing, for the duration of his presidency, at the initial invasion of Iraq--because he thought it would look unseemly for a president to be seen out on the golf course while American soldiers are in combat.

It was a big deal, to the fourth estate anyway, that President W. Bush spent so much time "on vacation" at his Crawford ranch in Texas.  Mainly they didn't like it because they hated Crawford (insufficiently urbane).  These are of course some of the same people who tell us it's no big deal that the president spends an extended Christmas holiday in Hawaii...because the modern technology allows the president to work from anywhere.

Little publicized fact about the Christmas holiday and George W. Bush.  During his 8 years, he was spent Christmas Eve/Day at the White House.  This was not for his convenience, but for the extended staff that supported the presidency--allowing the maximum number people to have a normal schedule and spend the holiday with their families.  When the president travels, lots of people do too.  I believe he learned this from his father, who followed the same practice.

The Obamas have always left for Hawaii before Christmas.  I don't begrudge them that, but it is a difference.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: pearson on February 18, 2016, 09:03:12 PM

From The Account Of Scalia's Remarks:

In the lunch session, he was asked a question about his views on “natural law.” He said, wittily, that he practices “American law.” Natural law might well be something appropriately taken into account by legislatures but not by courts. Whatever he might think as a Catholic citizen was one thing; his role as a judge was another.


The man was nothing if not consistent in his views.

Back in 2003, when I had a summer fellowship to study philosophy of law in Michigan, Justice Scalia joined us for three days during the program.  One morning, the discussion turned to natural law and its relation to various recent Supreme Court decisions.  Screwing up my courage (I was pretty intimidated just being in the same room with him), I asked him how, as a Roman Catholic, he reconciled Thomistic natural law theory (which situates civil law within the context of natural law, divine law, and eternal law) with his "originalism" (which, most generically, identifies civil law with black-letter law embedded in historical documents, legislation or case law).  He hesitated less than a moment, and then said, "I don't."

He went on to discuss the famous (well, "famous" among those who study such things; probably nowhere else) debate between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller over the relationship between law and morality.  Hart was a chastened and somewhat reluctant legal positivist, who thought that law and morality had only an incidental connection, while Fuller thought law and morality were intimately and internally connected.  Scalia was insistent: Hart got it exactly right.  Morality, even of the natural law variety, should never be used as the foundation for a judicial decision, at least within the American context.

I have thought since that day that Scalia's "originalism" was species of thinly-disguised legal positivism, where any sort of moral "penumbra" surrounding the interpretation of American law was to circulate its light as far away from the courts as possible.  It sounds like he held that position consistently to the end.

Tom Pearson   

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 18, 2016, 10:02:28 PM
Dr. Pearson, I appreciate insights like yours from people with first-hand experience in the ideas and personages under discussion.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 19, 2016, 08:44:58 AM

From The Account Of Scalia's Remarks:

In the lunch session, he was asked a question about his views on “natural law.” He said, wittily, that he practices “American law.” Natural law might well be something appropriately taken into account by legislatures but not by courts. Whatever he might think as a Catholic citizen was one thing; his role as a judge was another.


The man was nothing if not consistent in his views.

Back in 2003, when I had a summer fellowship to study philosophy of law in Michigan, Justice Scalia joined us for three days during the program.  One morning, the discussion turned to natural law and its relation to various recent Supreme Court decisions.  Screwing up my courage (I was pretty intimidated just being in the same room with him), I asked him how, as a Roman Catholic, he reconciled Thomistic natural law theory (which situates civil law within the context of natural law, divine law, and eternal law) with his "originalism" (which, most generically, identifies civil law with black-letter law embedded in historical documents, legislation or case law).  He hesitated less than a moment, and then said, "I don't."

He went on to discuss the famous (well, "famous" among those who study such things; probably nowhere else) debate between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller over the relationship between law and morality.  Hart was a chastened and somewhat reluctant legal positivist, who thought that law and morality had only an incidental connection, while Fuller thought law and morality were intimately and internally connected.  Scalia was insistent: Hart got it exactly right.  Morality, even of the natural law variety, should never be used as the foundation for a judicial decision, at least within the American context.

I have thought since that day that Scalia's "originalism" was species of thinly-disguised legal positivism, where any sort of moral "penumbra" surrounding the interpretation of American law was to circulate its light as far away from the courts as possible.  It sounds like he held that position consistently to the end.

Tom Pearson

Thanks for this - extremely helpful and insightful.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 19, 2016, 02:23:25 PM

From The Account Of Scalia's Remarks:

In the lunch session, he was asked a question about his views on “natural law.” He said, wittily, that he practices “American law.” Natural law might well be something appropriately taken into account by legislatures but not by courts. Whatever he might think as a Catholic citizen was one thing; his role as a judge was another.


The man was nothing if not consistent in his views.

Back in 2003, when I had a summer fellowship to study philosophy of law in Michigan, Justice Scalia joined us for three days during the program.  One morning, the discussion turned to natural law and its relation to various recent Supreme Court decisions.  Screwing up my courage (I was pretty intimidated just being in the same room with him), I asked him how, as a Roman Catholic, he reconciled Thomistic natural law theory (which situates civil law within the context of natural law, divine law, and eternal law) with his "originalism" (which, most generically, identifies civil law with black-letter law embedded in historical documents, legislation or case law).  He hesitated less than a moment, and then said, "I don't."

He went on to discuss the famous (well, "famous" among those who study such things; probably nowhere else) debate between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller over the relationship between law and morality.  Hart was a chastened and somewhat reluctant legal positivist, who thought that law and morality had only an incidental connection, while Fuller thought law and morality were intimately and internally connected.  Scalia was insistent: Hart got it exactly right.  Morality, even of the natural law variety, should never be used as the foundation for a judicial decision, at least within the American context.

I have thought since that day that Scalia's "originalism" was species of thinly-disguised legal positivism, where any sort of moral "penumbra" surrounding the interpretation of American law was to circulate its light as far away from the courts as possible.  It sounds like he held that position consistently to the end.

Tom Pearson
Agreed, but that position presupposes that judges aren't legislating from the bench. While natural law has no  role in a judicial decision because such decisions must be based solely on the text of the constitution, natural law has a great role in legislative decisions at any level. A state senator or a U.S. Congressman considering whether to enact a law can and in some cases ought to take natural law into account. So the point is not so much that natural law has no role in the formation of laws but that judges, because they have (at least according to the constitution) no role in the formation of laws, ought not consider anything, not even natural law, except the text of the law when rendering decisions.

If the Supreme Court is going to allow other things to help decide cases, such as implied rights, the history of the legislation beyond the text of it, or UN resolutions or what have you, then natural law is fair game. All the judges have to play by the same rules for the system to work.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 19, 2016, 03:07:01 PM
I just came from the Court.  The line to get in is about two hours long.  Very moving.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 19, 2016, 03:31:52 PM
I just came from the Court.  The line to get in is about two hours long.  Very moving.
Was Laura Ingraham in the line of former clerks?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 19, 2016, 03:37:52 PM
I just came from the Court.  The line to get in is about two hours long.  Very moving.
Was Laura Ingraham in the line of former clerks?

She clerked for Justice Thomas, didn't she?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 19, 2016, 03:42:41 PM
I just came from the Court.  The line to get in is about two hours long.  Very moving.
Was Laura Ingraham in the line of former clerks?

She clerked for Justice Thomas, didn't she?

Yes.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 19, 2016, 03:47:24 PM
I just came from the Court.  The line to get in is about two hours long.  Very moving.
Was Laura Ingraham in the line of former clerks?

She clerked for Justice Thomas, didn't she?
Oooops, my bad, you are correct...
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: JEdwards on February 19, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
The man was nothing if not consistent in his views.

Back in 2003, when I had a summer fellowship to study philosophy of law in Michigan, Justice Scalia joined us for three days during the program.  One morning, the discussion turned to natural law and its relation to various recent Supreme Court decisions.  Screwing up my courage (I was pretty intimidated just being in the same room with him), I asked him how, as a Roman Catholic, he reconciled Thomistic natural law theory (which situates civil law within the context of natural law, divine law, and eternal law) with his "originalism" (which, most generically, identifies civil law with black-letter law embedded in historical documents, legislation or case law).  He hesitated less than a moment, and then said, "I don't."

He went on to discuss the famous (well, "famous" among those who study such things; probably nowhere else) debate between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller over the relationship between law and morality.  Hart was a chastened and somewhat reluctant legal positivist, who thought that law and morality had only an incidental connection, while Fuller thought law and morality were intimately and internally connected.  Scalia was insistent: Hart got it exactly right.  Morality, even of the natural law variety, should never be used as the foundation for a judicial decision, at least within the American context.

I have thought since that day that Scalia's "originalism" was species of thinly-disguised legal positivism, where any sort of moral "penumbra" surrounding the interpretation of American law was to circulate its light as far away from the courts as possible.  It sounds like he held that position consistently to the end.

Tom Pearson
Agreed, but that position presupposes that judges aren't legislating from the bench. While natural law has no  role in a judicial decision because such decisions must be based solely on the text of the constitution, natural law has a great role in legislative decisions at any level. A state senator or a U.S. Congressman considering whether to enact a law can and in some cases ought to take natural law into account. So the point is not so much that natural law has no role in the formation of laws but that judges, because they have (at least according to the constitution) no role in the formation of laws, ought not consider anything, not even natural law, except the text of the law when rendering decisions.

If the Supreme Court is going to allow other things to help decide cases, such as implied rights, the history of the legislation beyond the text of it, or UN resolutions or what have you, then natural law is fair game. All the judges have to play by the same rules for the system to work.
I would only add that sometimes the text of a law or constitution includes language that calls for a value judgment, which ought to be informed by natural law.  Probably the most obvious example is the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines and bail, and "cruel" and unusual punishment.  Recently, there has been much discussion about what constitutes a "reasonable" accommodation under RFRA. 

Jon
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: pearson on February 19, 2016, 06:42:05 PM

I would only add that sometimes the text of a law or constitution includes language that calls for a value judgment, which ought to be informed by natural law.  Probably the most obvious example is the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines and bail, and "cruel" and unusual punishment.  Recently, there has been much discussion about what constitutes a "reasonable" accommodation under RFRA.


My best guess is that Justice Scalia would have said that legal judgments involving considerations of value should be based on those values embedded in the original text of the relevant documents, legislation or case law.  In that case, contemporary value judgments would be derived, not from the precepts of natural law, but from the antecedent texts and decisions.  I suppose this kind of "originalism" is an exercise in historical sociology rather than an application of the requirements of natural law.  For instance, I suspect Scalia would have assessed what counts as "reasonable accommodation" in the RFRA by scrutinizing the prior trajectory of case law on the subject, not by consulting natural law.  Again, that's my best guess.

Tom Pearson     
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: JEdwards on February 19, 2016, 08:38:43 PM

I would only add that sometimes the text of a law or constitution includes language that calls for a value judgment, which ought to be informed by natural law.  Probably the most obvious example is the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines and bail, and "cruel" and unusual punishment.  Recently, there has been much discussion about what constitutes a "reasonable" accommodation under RFRA.


My best guess is that Justice Scalia would have said that legal judgments involving considerations of value should be based on those values embedded in the original text of the relevant documents, legislation or case law.  In that case, contemporary value judgments would be derived, not from the precepts of natural law, but from the antecedent texts and decisions.  I suppose this kind of "originalism" is an exercise in historical sociology rather than an application of the requirements of natural law.  For instance, I suspect Scalia would have assessed what counts as "reasonable accommodation" in the RFRA by scrutinizing the prior trajectory of case law on the subject, not by consulting natural law.  Again, that's my best guess.

Tom Pearson     
I agree with you that this would likely have been Justice Scalia's answer.  I think his goal was to have a judicial philosophy that eliminated or at least minimized subjectivity in judging, and this approach has obvious value.  However, I'm not sure it could ever be completely successful.  For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides for fines for failure to meet certain standards for securing electronic medical records.  Given the technical challenges of cybersecurity, the increased complexity of medical records, etc., it seems fanciful to suppose that one could identify eighteenth century precedents capable of providing a definitive answer to the question of whether or not the statutory fines are "excessive". 

Jon Edwards
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: SomeoneWrites on February 20, 2016, 12:16:27 AM

I would only add that sometimes the text of a law or constitution includes language that calls for a value judgment, which ought to be informed by natural law.  Probably the most obvious example is the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive" fines and bail, and "cruel" and unusual punishment.  Recently, there has been much discussion about what constitutes a "reasonable" accommodation under RFRA.


My best guess is that Justice Scalia would have said that legal judgments involving considerations of value should be based on those values embedded in the original text of the relevant documents, legislation or case law.  In that case, contemporary value judgments would be derived, not from the precepts of natural law, but from the antecedent texts and decisions.  I suppose this kind of "originalism" is an exercise in historical sociology rather than an application of the requirements of natural law.  For instance, I suspect Scalia would have assessed what counts as "reasonable accommodation" in the RFRA by scrutinizing the prior trajectory of case law on the subject, not by consulting natural law.  Again, that's my best guess.

Tom Pearson     
I agree with you that this would likely have been Justice Scalia's answer.  I think his goal was to have a judicial philosophy that eliminated or at least minimized subjectivity in judging, and this approach has obvious value.  However, I'm not sure it could ever be completely successful.  For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides for fines for failure to meet certain standards for securing electronic medical records.  Given the technical challenges of cybersecurity, the increased complexity of medical records, etc., it seems fanciful to suppose that one could identify eighteenth century precedents capable of providing a definitive answer to the question of whether or not the statutory fines are "excessive". 

Jon Edwards

I agree with what  JEdwards wrote.  I mean, I definitely appreciate minimizing subjectivity, and attempting to make things work with what we think the founding fathers envisioned...
- but so much of what's out there is beyond what they envisioned, lacks precedents, and imposes what we we think they thought, etc etc. 

I'm really for a new constitution at this point, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 12:17:09 AM
More from Scotusblog:

Quote
Meanwhile, the Court indicated that the memorial tribute to Scalia — in the form of black drapes over his chair and at his place on the bench, as well as over the courtroom entrance, will remain in place until March 14.  That is thirty days after his death.

The Justices will leave his place on the bench as is during that time, and thus will not take their new places on the bench — all but the Chief Justice moving to opposite sides — until the tribute is over.  Thus, during the Court’s next public sitting, which begins Monday and continues through March 7, the Justices will continue in the seats they have held in recent Terms.

When the memorial period is over, the Justices will take their new seats, for the sitting beginning March 21, and there will be an empty spot at the right side of the bench, reserved for a new, junior Justice if the political branches can agree to provide one.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!


I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix.  I wish that other Christian public servants would follow this practice at Christian funerals. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 11:33:11 AM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 11:49:05 AM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.


Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 


As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 11:52:26 AM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2016, 12:00:22 PM
I note that the Second Reading for this Sunday (from Revised Common Lectionary), includes the line: "Our citizenship is in heaven" (Phl 3:20) written by a man who was and used his Roman citizenship. As Christians, we should have ways of indicating that our primary citizenship is in heaven, not in the United States. I think that the justice did that. His funeral was a church service and followed the practices of his church.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.
I can confirm that what Pr. Kirchner writes about the flag being replaced by the white pall during Catholic funerals is both correct and required. The pall reflects the person's being joined to Christ in baptism--the "document" in Christ's blood that gives entrance to heaven, our true and eternal homeland.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 20, 2016, 12:03:47 PM
Good sermon, focused on Christ...
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 20, 2016, 12:09:54 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.


Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 


As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

No matter the differences in ecclesiology; if the local pastor/priest/bishop/archbishop/cardinal grants a request from a pastor/priest/archbishop/cardinal to proclaim and/or celebrate at a funeral Eucharist because of his relationship with the deceased by blood or friendship, that is the prerogative of that local leader.  I have been on the receiving and giving end of that in many instances through the years.

Dave Benke

This Mass seems to me very appropriate and moving in its understanding of life, abundant life and eternal life, and of the Eucharist as Foretaste of the Feast to Come.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 12:12:34 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.


I'll leave the first point for you to ponder.


As for the second:  John Kennedy (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20131117/news/711179902/), Ronald Reagan (http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/JYv7NQDmdS9/President+Reagan+Funeral+Service+Held+National/-4Ni8j_kr_x), and several Supreme Court justices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-justice-funeral-photos_us_56c4a893e4b0b40245c89be2).  It's not a shock that Justice Scalia's family had the flag replaced with a pall.  Given Justice Scalia's piety, it may not even be surprising in his case.  But it is not the normal (most common) practice among public officials.  And therefore worthy of note.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 12:15:36 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.


I'll leave the first point for you to ponder.

As you state, it is a strange action. Perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.Unless, of course, the funeral service is seen as a victory celebration.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 12:21:42 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.
I can confirm that what Pr. Kirchner writes about the flag being replaced by the white pall during Catholic funerals is both correct and required. The pall reflects the person's being joined to Christ in baptism--the "document" in Christ's blood that gives entrance to heaven, our true and eternal homeland.

Peace,
Michael


Is this now the consistent practice in Catholic churches?  The funerals for John and Bobby Kennedy (admittedly long ago) most assuredly did not follow it.  I don't believe that the Lutheran funeral for CJ Rehnquist followed it.  The funerals for Presidents Reagan and Ford (at the National Cathedral (Episcopal)) did not follow it.  In any event, my point simply was that this is a good thing and not the norm among major public officials.  If it is now the required practice in Catholic churches, all the better.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 12:26:27 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.

Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 

As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

Ungracious? How so?

As for the flag, my point is that it is not surprising that the flag was replaced by the pall during the service, whether Roman Catholic or Lutheran.


I'll leave the first point for you to ponder.

As you state, it is a strange action. Perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.Unless, of course, the funeral service is seen as a victory celebration.


I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 12:30:00 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

How strange it is that a son would preside and preach at his father's funeral, unless he was his father's pastor.

I am moved by the decision to remove the American flag from the casket for the funeral and to replace it with a simple pall topped with a crucifix. 

Isn't that the norm in the Church? We always remove the flag on a vet's casket before the service, place a funeral pall on it,and remove the pall prior to exiting the church, replaced by the flag.


Why so ungracious?  The Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS have different ecclesiologies.  You know that. 


As for the flag, you no doubt know that what you always do in your church is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.  You most assuredly have seen press coverage of Christian funerals so of public servants and noticed the caskets draped by the American flag.  Indeed, I believe that practice to be the far more common.

No matter the differences in ecclesiology; if the local pastor/priest/bishop/archbishop/cardinal grants a request from a pastor/priest/archbishop/cardinal to proclaim and/or celebrate at a funeral Eucharist because of his relationship with the deceased by blood or friendship, that is the prerogative of that local leader.  I have been on the receiving and giving end of that in many instances through the years.

Dave Benke

This Mass seems to me very appropriate and moving in its understanding of life, abundant life and eternal life, and of the Eucharist as Foretaste of the Feast to Come.


Thanks for these comments.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 12:34:33 PM
I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.

Ah, thank you for the correction. That better makes the point that perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.

The rest? What "rest"?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 20, 2016, 12:42:18 PM
I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.

Ah, thank you for the correction. That better makes the point that perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.

The rest? What "rest"?

One of the ponderables, Don, is the engagement/disengagement of the pastor/priest in what he says and does during the Divine Service/Mass.  Do I (as a pastor and baptized person) consider my own sin during the Public Confession?  Am I not in pronouncing Absolution, bringing the grace of God to myself?  In proclaiming the message of salvation, am I not hearing and internalizing what I am proclaiming?  Do I not receive the Holy Meal I have consecrated for my own forgiveness, strength and connection to the communion of saints?  Am I not sent forth to be in mission at the Benediction I pronounce?

While it is no doubt possible to state that a pastor/priest at the funeral of a loved one might desire to be in a solely receiving role, it is also possible that the same pastor/priest can receive as well as give by participating actively.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 01:08:26 PM
I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.

Ah, thank you for the correction. That better makes the point that perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.

The rest? What "rest"?

One of the ponderables, Don, is the engagement/disengagement of the pastor/priest in what he says and does during the Divine Service/Mass.  Do I (as a pastor and baptized person) consider my own sin during the Public Confession?  Am I not in pronouncing Absolution, bringing the grace of God to myself?  In proclaiming the message of salvation, am I not hearing and internalizing what I am proclaiming?  Do I not receive the Holy Meal I have consecrated for my own forgiveness, strength and connection to the communion of saints?  Am I not sent forth to be in mission at the Benediction I pronounce?

While it is no doubt possible to state that a pastor/priest at the funeral of a loved one might desire to be in a solely receiving role, it is also possible that the same pastor/priest can receive as well as give by participating actively.

Dave Benke

I've no disagreement with any of that, Dave.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 20, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
I think that it very common for Roman Catholic priests to officiate at the funerals of their family members. It would seem for them awkward not to.

I also believe that for Roman Catholics the pall is always used once the body is inside the church.

It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2016, 01:11:05 PM
I DVR'd the funeral on C-SPAN (I'm sure you can stream it online from them as well).

1.  Inside the basilica, the pall replaced the flag over the casket.

2.  Father Scalia  (the celebrant and preacher), at the beginning of his funeral homily, thanked Cardinal Wuerl (archbishop of Washington) and the bishop of Arlington (VA) for allowing this parish funeral to be held at the cathedral basilica, to accommodate the large crowd.  I haven't researched further, but it certainly sounds like Father Scalia was parish pastor to his father--in the Catholic context of multiple priests to a parish.  The cardinal was part of the procession, along with Father Scalia and the deacon/subdeacon of the mass and the usual acolytes etc.  I was wondering if they might use the extraordinary, but it was the ordinary form of the mass.  White paraments as a result.  The EF traditionalists have an attachment to black for funeral masses.

3.  After these introductory pleasantries, Father Scalia said they were all here because of one man...Jesus of Nazareth.  Of course his rhetorical gimmick was to lead you to believe he was talking about his father (a man loved by some, reviled by others, etc).  I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but it didn't sound like a eulogy for his father.  It was a Christian proclamation of the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.  I'm thinking that Father Scalia realized the unique opportunity presented him to proclaim the Gospel to a wide audience.  Personally, I don't know that I could have done it myself.  I know I had no interest in giving a eulogy at my father's funeral--I left that to others.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 01:15:09 PM
I can confirm that what Pr. Kirchner writes about the flag being replaced by the white pall during Catholic funerals is both correct and required. The pall reflects the person's being joined to Christ in baptism--the "document" in Christ's blood that gives entrance to heaven, our true and eternal homeland.

Peace,
Michael

Is this now the consistent practice in Catholic churches?  The funerals for John and Bobby Kennedy (admittedly long ago) most assuredly did not follow it.  I don't believe that the Lutheran funeral for CJ Rehnquist followed it.  The funerals for Presidents Reagan and Ford (at the National Cathedral (Episcopal)) did not follow it.  In any event, my point simply was that this is a good thing and not the norm among major public officials.  If it is now the required practice in Catholic churches, all the better.
It has certainly been the case since white (for resurrection) replaced black as the liturgical color of funerals. That was 1970, I believe.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on February 20, 2016, 01:21:41 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

When my father died of terminal cancer ten years ago he had become an Associate member of the congregation I was serving.  Most of his caregivers in the final weeks were members of that congregation.  His burial was to take place in the church cemetery.

The Eucharistic Funeral was held in that congregation. His primary pastor preached and I presided.   

It was not easy, but it was less difficult than I anticipated because Christ's table of life, spread before the Last Enemy, assures us that He has trampled down Death by death.  His Presence is overwhelming and His mercy endures forever.

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 01:28:28 PM
I think that it very common for Roman Catholic priests to officiate at the funerals of their family members. It would seem for them awkward not to.

I also believe that for Roman Catholics the pall is always used once the body is inside the church.

It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Peace, JOHN


Indeed. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 01:29:01 PM
One of the ponderables, Don, is the engagement/disengagement of the pastor/priest in what he says and does during the Divine Service/Mass.  Do I (as a pastor and baptized person) consider my own sin during the Public Confession?  Am I not in pronouncing Absolution, bringing the grace of God to myself?  In proclaiming the message of salvation, am I not hearing and internalizing what I am proclaiming?  Do I not receive the Holy Meal I have consecrated for my own forgiveness, strength and connection to the communion of saints?  Am I not sent forth to be in mission at the Benediction I pronounce?

While it is no doubt possible to state that a pastor/priest at the funeral of a loved one might desire to be in a solely receiving role, it is also possible that the same pastor/priest can receive as well as give by participating actively.

Dave Benke
A lot of what you say makes no sense to me at all. When does the presider/pastor NOT consider his own sin? Don't you always listen for and hear the message of salvation, whether you're in the pew or the pulpit?

I and other priests have made a prudential judgment when burying our parents: I presided at my father's funeral, but asked a close family friend to preside at my mother's.

Finally, at a Catholic funeral, the opening rites around the reception of the body normally displace the Penitential Rite. The same is true on other occasions when Mass proper is preceded by a substantial pre-Mass ritual, e.g., Palm Sunday; reception of those to be baptized during the Mass; the Easter Vigil light service.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Fletch on February 20, 2016, 01:33:04 PM
I DVR'd the funeral on C-SPAN (I'm sure you can stream it online from them as well).

1.  Inside the basilica, the pall replaced the flag over the casket.

2.  Father Scalia  (the celebrant and preacher), at the beginning of his funeral homily, thanked Cardinal Wuerl (archbishop of Washington) and the bishop of Arlington (VA) for allowing this parish funeral to be held at the cathedral basilica, to accommodate the large crowd.  I haven't researched further, but it certainly sounds like Father Scalia was parish pastor to his father--in the Catholic context of multiple priests to a parish.  The cardinal was part of the procession, along with Father Scalia and the deacon/subdeacon of the mass and the usual acolytes etc.  I was wondering if they might use the extraordinary, but it was the ordinary form of the mass.  White paraments as a result.  The EF traditionalists have an attachment to black for funeral masses.

3.  After these introductory pleasantries, Father Scalia said they were all here because of one man...Jesus of Nazareth.  Of course his rhetorical gimmick was to lead you to believe he was talking about his father (a man loved by some, reviled by others, etc).  I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but it didn't sound like a eulogy for his father.  It was a Christian proclamation of the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.  I'm thinking that Father Scalia realized the unique opportunity presented him to proclaim the Gospel to a wide audience.  Personally, I don't know that I could have done it myself.  I know I had no interest in giving a eulogy at my father's funeral--I left that to others.

Sterling Spatz

This funeral sounds much like the funerals in our church.  Very light on eulogy (looking back and about the person and what the person did) and very heavy on Jesus and Gospel (looking forward and about Christ and what He did for us).

... Fletch
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 20, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
One of the ponderables, Don, is the engagement/disengagement of the pastor/priest in what he says and does during the Divine Service/Mass.  Do I (as a pastor and baptized person) consider my own sin during the Public Confession?  Am I not in pronouncing Absolution, bringing the grace of God to myself?  In proclaiming the message of salvation, am I not hearing and internalizing what I am proclaiming?  Do I not receive the Holy Meal I have consecrated for my own forgiveness, strength and connection to the communion of saints?  Am I not sent forth to be in mission at the Benediction I pronounce?

While it is no doubt possible to state that a pastor/priest at the funeral of a loved one might desire to be in a solely receiving role, it is also possible that the same pastor/priest can receive as well as give by participating actively.

Dave Benke
A lot of what you say makes no sense to me at all. When does the presider/pastor NOT consider his own sin? Don't you always listen for and hear the message of salvation, whether you're in the pew or the pulpit?

I and other priests have made a prudential judgment when burying our parents: I presided at my father's funeral, but asked a close family friend to preside at my mother's.

Finally, at a Catholic funeral, the opening rites around the reception of the body normally displace the Penitential Rite. The same is true on other occasions when Mass proper is preceded by a substantial pre-Mass ritual, e.g., Palm Sunday; reception of those to be baptized during the Mass; the Easter Vigil light service.

Peace,
Michael


Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me as if you and Bp. Benke are saying much the same thing.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2016, 01:42:03 PM

This funeral sounds much like the funerals in our church.  Very light on eulogy (looking back and about the person and what the person did) and very heavy on Jesus and Gospel (looking forward and about Christ and what He did for us).

... Fletch
Yes.  I skipped up through the homily, but I imagine there will be more "liturgy" when they get past it.  The opening was just the procession to the hymn "O God our Help in Ages Past", incensing of the altar, opening remarks by Cardinal Wuerl, and then the invocation and collect for the dead chanted by Father Scalia.  They moved right into the lessons and the Gospel.  Justice Thomas read the second lesson.  I was unsure how Catholics handle a funeral during Lent, but the Gospel verse unsurprisingly did not include an alleluia.

I imagine the eucharistic prayer will be the Roman canon, as the Scalia family has an affinity for the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.  I also imagine everything has been/will be by the rubrics because of this.  I don't expect to find any eulogizing of the deceased during the mass (a rubric no-no)--as was the case during Ted Kennedy's funeral (which I also watched).  I'm wasn't yet born for JFK's funeral, which would have been the extraordinary (only) form.  I realize that bending the rubrics is sometimes a pastoral consideration.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 02:37:53 PM
It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification, and the quite Lutheran description of the Real Presence.  ;)

Unfortunately, as is usual in most Christian funeral homilies, no mention of the physical resurrection. Jeff Gibbs still has a lot of work to do. "Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world."
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: mariemeyer on February 20, 2016, 02:44:36 PM
I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.

Ah, thank you for the correction. That better makes the point that perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.



What if the son wanted to conduct the funeral mass for his father?  Is there any indication the son felt he was not allowed to be a mourner?

Marie



Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 02:58:21 PM

Unfortunately, as is usual in most Christian funeral homilies, no mention of the physical resurrection. Jeff Gibbs still has a lot of work to do. "Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world."
You'd enjoy talking with my former student, Dr. J. Robert Douglass, who teaches at Ashland Theological Seminary. It looks as if this year he is getting to teach material that interested him in his Ph.D. dissertation, "This flesh will rise again" [electronic resource] : retrieving early Christian faith in bodily resurrection." His interest was specifically in affecting funeral preaching. He's teach a Pilot Course: At Last--Christian Eschatology at Ashland this year.
http://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/j-robert-douglass (http://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/j-robert-douglass).

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 20, 2016, 03:01:32 PM
It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification....


I did notice it. That's what I would quibble about.    :)

Peace, JOHN

Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Boris on February 20, 2016, 03:11:12 PM
Just finished watching Justice Scalia's funeral.  Wow.  What a superb example of the Roman Catholic tradition at its finest, and I meant that most sincerely.  Everything was top notch, reverent and traditional.  Judge Scalia's son, the priest who gave the homily, seems like a wonderful, delightful man.  I thought he did a great job of focusing on Christ in his funeral homily.  The basilica's organist, choir, and liturgics are superb. I thought it was a powerful Catholic witness to the testimony of Jesus Christ.  Well done!
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 03:12:10 PM
I did not say that it was strange.  I said that it must be difficult.  I'll leave it to you to ponder the rest.

Ah, thank you for the correction. That better makes the point that perhaps the gracious thing would be to allow the son to be a mourner with the family.



What if the son wanted to conduct the funeral mass for his father?  Is there any indication the son felt he was not allowed to be a mourner?

Marie

I've been advised that the son was one of his father's pastors. If he were not, then my question would be, "Why?"

I've seen none.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 03:13:03 PM

Unfortunately, as is usual in most Christian funeral homilies, no mention of the physical resurrection. Jeff Gibbs still has a lot of work to do. "Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world."
You'd enjoy talking with my former student, Dr. J. Robert Douglass, who teaches at Ashland Theological Seminary. It looks as if this year he is getting to teach material that interested him in his Ph.D. dissertation, "This flesh will rise again" [electronic resource] : retrieving early Christian faith in bodily resurrection." His interest was specifically in affecting funeral preaching. He's teach a Pilot Course: At Last--Christian Eschatology at Ashland this year.
http://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/j-robert-douglass (http://seminary.ashland.edu/directory/j-robert-douglass).

Peace,
Michael

Excellent!
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2016, 03:24:05 PM
How difficult must it be to preside and preach at one's father's funeral!

When my father died of terminal cancer ten years ago he had become an Associate member of the congregation I was serving.  Most of his caregivers in the final weeks were members of that congregation.  His burial was to take place in the church cemetery.

The Eucharistic Funeral was held in that congregation. His primary pastor preached and I presided.   

It was not easy, but it was less difficult than I anticipated because Christ's table of life, spread before the Last Enemy, assures us that He has trampled down Death by death.  His Presence is overwhelming and His mercy endures forever.


When my father died 16 years ago, he and mom had a pastor who had ministered to them during the 8 months of his illness. I was a son - one of three. I didn't seek nor had any part in his memorial service (even though I had preached a few times in their congregation). I did participate some time later when his ashes were the first to be placed in their new columbarium.


I did conduct the service for my mother-in-law, and her daughter-in-law provided music. This service was at the funeral parlor. She had been living in a memory-care unit and hadn't been active in a congregation for a few years.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 20, 2016, 04:32:31 PM
Once again, this idea that the pastoral ministry should be so limited to a specific institutional  relationship really puzzles me. The more I think about it, the more I find it demeans the entire office of the ministry.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: readselerttoo on February 20, 2016, 04:52:03 PM
I DVR'd the funeral on C-SPAN (I'm sure you can stream it online from them as well).

1.  Inside the basilica, the pall replaced the flag over the casket.

2.  Father Scalia  (the celebrant and preacher), at the beginning of his funeral homily, thanked Cardinal Wuerl (archbishop of Washington) and the bishop of Arlington (VA) for allowing this parish funeral to be held at the cathedral basilica, to accommodate the large crowd.  I haven't researched further, but it certainly sounds like Father Scalia was parish pastor to his father--in the Catholic context of multiple priests to a parish.  The cardinal was part of the procession, along with Father Scalia and the deacon/subdeacon of the mass and the usual acolytes etc.  I was wondering if they might use the extraordinary, but it was the ordinary form of the mass.  White paraments as a result.  The EF traditionalists have an attachment to black for funeral masses.

3.  After these introductory pleasantries, Father Scalia said they were all here because of one man...Jesus of Nazareth.  Of course his rhetorical gimmick was to lead you to believe he was talking about his father (a man loved by some, reviled by others, etc).  I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but it didn't sound like a eulogy for his father.  It was a Christian proclamation of the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.  I'm thinking that Father Scalia realized the unique opportunity presented him to proclaim the Gospel to a wide audience.  Personally, I don't know that I could have done it myself.  I know I had no interest in giving a eulogy at my father's funeral--I left that to others.

Sterling Spatz


Indeed, as I watched and listened to the opening of the homily, I too was drawn in to the thought that the rhetoric might lead to a eulogy.  I too was pleased that the techne was to point to Jesus Christ and not to his own father.  I wonder if this wasn't intended to draw the public closer to what goes on between law and Gospel and how the Gospel is the point of all sermons, in the ideal situation.  Nonetheless a great public witness to Jesus was made.  And all this from a Roman Catholic priest as well!  Who thought that a RC priest could do so well in making the grand distinction between law and Gospel.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 20, 2016, 04:57:41 PM
One of the ponderables, Don, is the engagement/disengagement of the pastor/priest in what he says and does during the Divine Service/Mass.  Do I (as a pastor and baptized person) consider my own sin during the Public Confession?  Am I not in pronouncing Absolution, bringing the grace of God to myself?  In proclaiming the message of salvation, am I not hearing and internalizing what I am proclaiming?  Do I not receive the Holy Meal I have consecrated for my own forgiveness, strength and connection to the communion of saints?  Am I not sent forth to be in mission at the Benediction I pronounce?

While it is no doubt possible to state that a pastor/priest at the funeral of a loved one might desire to be in a solely receiving role, it is also possible that the same pastor/priest can receive as well as give by participating actively.

Dave Benke
A lot of what you say makes no sense to me at all. When does the presider/pastor NOT consider his own sin? Don't you always listen for and hear the message of salvation, whether you're in the pew or the pulpit?

I and other priests have made a prudential judgment when burying our parents: I presided at my father's funeral, but asked a close family friend to preside at my mother's.

Finally, at a Catholic funeral, the opening rites around the reception of the body normally displace the Penitential Rite. The same is true on other occasions when Mass proper is preceded by a substantial pre-Mass ritual, e.g., Palm Sunday; reception of those to be baptized during the Mass; the Easter Vigil light service.

Peace,
Michael

As someone else stated it, Michael, I am indeed saying the same thing you're saying.  I just put it in the form of a set of rhetorical questions.  I know that's not Lutheran - we do things in the form of propositional statements; that's probably what threw you.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 20, 2016, 05:08:13 PM
It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification....


I did notice it. That's what I would quibble about.    :)

Peace, JOHN

That being said, it was a funeral for one who was Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church  ;)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 20, 2016, 05:26:43 PM
One of the ponderables, Don, is the engagement/disengagement of the pastor/priest in what he says and does during the Divine Service/Mass.  Do I (as a pastor and baptized person) consider my own sin during the Public Confession?  Am I not in pronouncing Absolution, bringing the grace of God to myself?  In proclaiming the message of salvation, am I not hearing and internalizing what I am proclaiming?  Do I not receive the Holy Meal I have consecrated for my own forgiveness, strength and connection to the communion of saints?  Am I not sent forth to be in mission at the Benediction I pronounce?

While it is no doubt possible to state that a pastor/priest at the funeral of a loved one might desire to be in a solely receiving role, it is also possible that the same pastor/priest can receive as well as give by participating actively.

Dave Benke
A lot of what you say makes no sense to me at all. When does the presider/pastor NOT consider his own sin? Don't you always listen for and hear the message of salvation, whether you're in the pew or the pulpit?

I and other priests have made a prudential judgment when burying our parents: I presided at my father's funeral, but asked a close family friend to preside at my mother's.

Finally, at a Catholic funeral, the opening rites around the reception of the body normally displace the Penitential Rite. The same is true on other occasions when Mass proper is preceded by a substantial pre-Mass ritual, e.g., Palm Sunday; reception of those to be baptized during the Mass; the Easter Vigil light service.

Peace,
Michael

Father Slusser - I have one question, open to all herein, but I mention you at the outset to say that my question suggests no disrespect for your decisions regarding your parents.

It seemed very appropriate to me that Father Scalia would preach and preside at the funeral for his father, indeed, it seems appropriate if a close family member is a member of the clergy to ash him/her to be part of the funeral.   My question:  How open should a pastor be to accede to the wishes of a family (or a clergy person) to preach and/or preside at the funeral of a member? As the circle of relationships widen, e.g., friends or some type of collegial relationship, there's a sense of going out to dinner and bringing one's own chef.   Full disclosure, a number of years ago the daughter of a friend/fellow parishioner died.  While the family was active in the congregation and long-time members, they were not particularly supportive of the pastor and, thus, they invited two pastors from other parishes to the funeral - one to preach and one to preside..  I thought it very gracious of the parish pastor to accede to the wishes of the family.   I was, however, a bit uncomfortable with it all - if not a little sympathetic to the pastor who, while not having any role in the funeral, would be the one left to give to this family the pastoral care they would need in the days to come. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 06:05:17 PM
Father Slusser - I have one question, open to all herein, but I mention you at the outset to say that my question suggests no disrespect for your decisions regarding your parents.

It seemed very appropriate to me that Father Scalia would preach and preside at the funeral for his father, indeed, it seems appropriate if a close family member is a member of the clergy to ash him/her to be part of the funeral.   My question:  How open should a pastor be to accede to the wishes of a family (or a clergy person) to preach and/or preside at the funeral of a member? As the circle of relationships widen, e.g., friends or some type of collegial relationship, there's a sense of going out to dinner and bringing one's own chef.   Full disclosure, a number of years ago the daughter of a friend/fellow parishioner died.  While the family was active in the congregation and long-time members, they were not particularly supportive of the pastor and, thus, they invited two pastors from other parishes to the funeral - one to preach and one to preside..  I thought it very gracious of the parish pastor to accede to the wishes of the family.   I was, however, a bit uncomfortable with it all - if not a little sympathetic to the pastor who, while not having any role in the funeral, would be the one left to give to this family the pastoral care they would need in the days to come.
That last concern was not present with my mother's funeral. No one in the family even lived in Minnesota! Mother had been in a nursing home the last couple of years of her life, and I had arranged with the pastor of the parish I had last served before going out to Pittsburgh to teach that when she died, she could be buried from that parish. It had been 15 years since she had attended the parish she belonged briefly to before she and dad had moved to Tennessee. The pastor at neither parish knew her. I asked a priest in the archdiocese who was very close to dad and her, had been in their house countless times, and who had traveled in Europe with them and me, to preside and preach. He did beautifully.

My family who could attend from Philadelphia, Knoxville, Monterey CA and Midland MI hardly knew me in my capacity as a priest, and had differing degrees of comfort with the church; in addition, although, among the parishioners at the parish I had been pastor of eight years previous, I had and still have many of my dearest friends, there were certain points of strain that I wanted to avoid rekindling. So I declared my solidarity with my brothers and sisters and sat with them.

My dad's death, on the other hand, was sudden as they were traveling in England. I was the only family member besides my mother, the Catholic church was closed for repairs, and they were using the chapel of a Catholic girls' school. That's where we celebrated the funeral Mass, with at most a couple of dozen English friends and fellow students in attendance.

Sometimes the pastor/deceased relationship is a ways down the list of considerations, and should be.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 20, 2016, 06:33:53 PM
Father Slusser - I have one question, open to all herein, but I mention you at the outset to say that my question suggests no disrespect for your decisions regarding your parents.

It seemed very appropriate to me that Father Scalia would preach and preside at the funeral for his father, indeed, it seems appropriate if a close family member is a member of the clergy to ash him/her to be part of the funeral.   My question:  How open should a pastor be to accede to the wishes of a family (or a clergy person) to preach and/or preside at the funeral of a member? As the circle of relationships widen, e.g., friends or some type of collegial relationship, there's a sense of going out to dinner and bringing one's own chef.   Full disclosure, a number of years ago the daughter of a friend/fellow parishioner died.  While the family was active in the congregation and long-time members, they were not particularly supportive of the pastor and, thus, they invited two pastors from other parishes to the funeral - one to preach and one to preside..  I thought it very gracious of the parish pastor to accede to the wishes of the family.   I was, however, a bit uncomfortable with it all - if not a little sympathetic to the pastor who, while not having any role in the funeral, would be the one left to give to this family the pastoral care they would need in the days to come.
That last concern was not present with my mother's funeral. No one in the family even lived in Minnesota! Mother had been in a nursing home the last couple of years of her life, and I had arranged with the pastor of the parish I had last served before going out to Pittsburgh to teach that when she died, she could be buried from that parish. It had been 15 years since she had attended the parish she belonged briefly to before she and dad had moved to Tennessee. The pastor at neither parish knew her. I asked a priest in the archdiocese who was very close to dad and her, had been in their house countless times, and who had traveled in Europe with them and me, to preside and preach. He did beautifully.

My family who could attend from Philadelphia, Knoxville, Monterey CA and Midland MI hardly knew me in my capacity as a priest, and had differing degrees of comfort with the church; in addition, although, among the parishioners at the parish I had been pastor of eight years previous, I had and still have many of my dearest friends, there were certain points of strain that I wanted to avoid rekindling. So I declared my solidarity with my brothers and sisters and sat with them.

My dad's death, on the other hand, was sudden as they were traveling in England. I was the only family member besides my mother, the Catholic church was closed for repairs, and they were using the chapel of a Catholic girls' school. That's where we celebrated the funeral Mass, with at most a couple of dozen English friends and fellow students in attendance.

Sometimes the pastor/deceased relationship is a ways down the list of considerations, and should be.

Peace,
Michael

Thank you for sharing this.  I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.   I suppose there'a a sense that the deceased is known in many ways.  In the workplace s/he was a colleague, at home a parent, child, grandparent, etc, as a friend.  I'm going to suggest that all of these are, of their own being, communities.   The funeral brings these communities together in a community of the faithful - the parish the deceased was a member.  I wouldn't think a pastor would have a problem with an ordained family member having a role in the funeral.  My question is how far down does one go.  I worked on the MNYS for a while.  My colleagues, for the most part, were clergy.  I have friends who are clergy.  How far into the circle of relationships does one go as far as respecting the family's wishes.  I am speaking to situations where the family is involved in the life of the congregation. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 08:54:01 PM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 20, 2016, 09:28:43 PM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

For the most part, I do think Father Slusser and I agree that there are instances where, it is appropriate, for an ordained family member to preside and/or preach at a loved one's funeral. 

Why?  There is a subtle difference, I believe, between the Sunday worship service and those events in our lives that take place outside of this Sunday worship.   Recently a baby was baptized in our congregation.  Her grandfather, an LCMS pastor, asked to preach.  The pastor and worship committee discussed this request and it was decided that baptism is a sacrament that happens within the Sunday congregational worship and, as such, the called pastor would preach.  At yet another baptism of the granddaughter of a long-time member wanted friends who were not members of the congregation to read.  We again said no - same reason.  There does seem to be leeway, however, with weddings and funerals.  Funerals, most especially, are a time when we try to work with the wishes of the family - for their comfort in a very difficult time - as much as is possible.   
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 20, 2016, 09:32:23 PM
I need to post this publicly, because Mr. Johnson will not let me address him privately.
Someone did post the context of the comment from the late justice. You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 20, 2016, 09:38:57 PM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Who he?  ???

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 20, 2016, 10:03:39 PM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

For the most part, I do think Father Slusser and I agree that there are instances where, it is appropriate, for an ordained family member to preside and/or preach at a loved one's funeral. 

Why?  There is a subtle difference, I believe, between the Sunday worship service and those events in our lives that take place outside of this Sunday worship.   Recently a baby was baptized in our congregation.  Her grandfather, an LCMS pastor, asked to preach.  The pastor and worship committee discussed this request and it was decided that baptism is a sacrament that happens within the Sunday congregational worship and, as such, the called pastor would preach.  At yet another baptism of the granddaughter of a long-time member wanted friends who were not members of the congregation to read.  We again said no - same reason.  There does seem to be leeway, however, with weddings and funerals.  Funerals, most especially, are a time when we try to work with the wishes of the family - for their comfort in a very difficult time - as much as is possible.

Looking for an answer...Why?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 21, 2016, 07:28:43 AM
It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification....




I did notice it. That's what I would quibble about.    :)

Peace, JOHN

That being said, it was a funeral for one who was Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church  ;)

Indeed. That's why I said "very little" quibble and then only if pressed. That, of course is not likely to happen. A funeral is no place to carry out theological polemics.  This funeral was a magnificent witness to our shared faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the body!   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 21, 2016, 07:57:41 AM
It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification....


I did notice it. That's what I would quibble about.    :)

Peace, JOHN

That being said, it was a funeral for one who was Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church  ;)

Indeed. That's why I said "very little" quibble and then only if pressed. That, of course is not likely to happen. A funeral is no place to carry out theological polemics.  This funeral was a magnificent witness to our shared faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the body!   :)

Peace, JOHN

An online forum is a place to critique. As I said, it was a very good Christ-centered homily. I did not hear, however, any direct witness, much less a magnificent one, to the resurrection of the body.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 08:28:54 AM
They confessed the creed. That is a direct reference to the "resurrection of the body." The faith proclaimed is not all in the sermon. And the creed is pretty "magnificent" in its clarity and comprehensiveness, is it not?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 08:29:54 AM
I need to post this publicly, because Mr. Johnson will not let me address him privately.
Someone did post the context of the comment from the late justice. You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks.
This is what people have been trying to tell you for years. You have a strange "need" to post things like the above, which did not need to be posted.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 08:31:53 AM
So, Peter, when someone takes a cheap shot at me and I wish to engage them privately and when they refuse to receive my private comments, what recourse do I have to seek correction and reconciliation?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 21, 2016, 11:52:35 AM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Who he?  ???

Peace,r
Michael
My apology, Father. My auto spell/correct on my tablet sometimes gets the best of me, and I don't catch the changes. E.g., it always changes Mundinger to Gunslinger and Slusser to Schuster.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 02:00:39 PM
So, Peter, when someone takes a cheap shot at me and I wish to engage them privately and when they refuse to receive my private comments, what recourse do I have to seek correction and reconciliation?
You have the recourse you took, though you flatter yourself when you say you were seeking reconciliation with your post. Nobody genuinely seeking reconciliation with his brother says, "You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks."

My comment was on your deep-seated "need" to respond. I never said you couldn't post it. I said it didn't "need" to be posted. If it was a cheap shot you were responding to, then nearly all the other readers here would discern it as such, and the ones who couldn't weren't going to be swayed by your "correction." You seem to live in what can only be described as fear that you won't have the last word in any of the many highly personal echanges that seem to afflict your participation here. This causes you to post things that can't possibly have any positive effect on the thread, like the one I pointed out.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 02:53:44 PM
And Peter, I dare say, that you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes "positive effect" on the thread of discussion. As for lastworditis, I suggest you check the postings of certain others here, who, if I were to name them would indeed make this thread more cluttered than my Aunt Mabel's garage. Ever see an old stove, hunting gear, remnants of Delft china and loose Tinker Toys all in one place?
As for the personage in question, I might suggest that if you are supposedly ignoring my comments, and if your mailbox refuses to accept my responses, then do indeed ignore my remarks - rude as that may be - or at least have the kindness and common sense not to take the shots. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 03:59:16 PM
And Peter, I dare say, that you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes "positive effect" on the thread of discussion. As for lastworditis, I suggest you check the postings of certain others here, who, if I were to name them would indeed make this thread more cluttered than my Aunt Mabel's garage. Ever see an old stove, hunting gear, remnants of Delft china and loose Tinker Toys all in one place?
As for the personage in question, I might suggest that if you are supposedly ignoring my comments, and if your mailbox refuses to accept my responses, then do indeed ignore my remarks - rude as that may be - or at least have the kindness and common sense not to take the shots.
Do you think your public response to Mr. Johnson had a positive effect on the thread? If so, what was it?

 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
I don't know, Peter; as I do not set myself up as the ultimate person to determine what is "positive." It will come as no surprise to you that I do not find many of your posts positive; but I suspect that some do.
Here, as in life, every mot need not be bon. Nor need it be bon for every lecteur.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 04:37:04 PM
I don't know, Peter; as I do not set myself up as the ultimate person to determine what is "positive." It will come as no surprise to you that I do not find many of your posts positive; but I suspect that some do.
Here, as in life, every mot need not be bon. Nor need it be bon for every lecteur.
You can give your opinion without setting yourself up as the ultimate person to make that determination. I didn't ask for a definitive, objective and unarguable ruling from you on whether the post in question made a positive contribution to the thread. I simply asked what you thought on the subject. Why is that so hard to answer? Do you think your response to Mr. Johnson made the thread better, more informative, more likely people would want to read it, or anything else that might fall under the category of "positive?"
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Fletch on February 21, 2016, 04:46:16 PM
Sing loudly:

It's all about me. 
My remains,
my hobbies,
my opinions,
my vacations,
my cats,
my funeral,
my expertise,
my humility,
me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me. 
And I can't even see, it's all about me.

... F
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 21, 2016, 04:56:40 PM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Who he?  ???

Peace,r
Michael
My apology, Father. My auto spell/correct on my tablet sometimes gets the best of me, and I don't catch the changes. E.g., it always changes Mundinger to Gunslinger and Slusser to Schuster.

Could have been worse. Might have been shyster.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 21, 2016, 05:00:10 PM
I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Who he?  ???

Peace,r
Michael
My apology, Father. My auto spell/correct on my tablet sometimes gets the best of me, and I don't catch the changes. E.g., it always changes Mundinger to Gunslinger and Slusser to Schuster.

Could have been worse. Might have been shyster.


Nah.  Autocorrect only applies that name to lawyers!
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 05:04:44 PM
Yes, Fletch, all I bring to this (or any)  discussion is who I am, what I think I know, and how my experience touches on the topic. Do you, or anyone else here, bring anything else but who we are?
 What is the real point of your "me" posting?  At least people here know who I am, for all I know you could be a 14-year old in Bahrain or a mental patient in Pocatello.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on February 21, 2016, 05:25:48 PM
PLEASE!

Today is the beginning of the Lenten Triodion in the holy Orthodox Church.

Today's Gospel has great bearing on how this discussion has degenerated.

Let us be attentive.

Quote

The Gospel according to Luke 18:10-14

The Lord said this parable, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Fletch on February 21, 2016, 06:18:14 PM
PLEASE!

Today is the beginning of the Lenten Triodion in the holy Orthodox Church.

Today's Gospel has great bearing on how this discussion has degenerated.

Let us be attentive.

Quote

The Gospel according to Luke 18:10-14

The Lord said this parable, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Very nicely put.  Much more Scriptural than "it's all about me".  It is always better to make it all about Jesus.

... F
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 22, 2016, 04:46:21 PM

The following does not prove one way or another how the Senate should respond to any nomination by President Obama.  But I'd love to hear the Vice President explain why 2016 is different from 1992 (aside from the obvious fact that the parties of the presidents and Senate majorities were then the opposite from today).

In 1992, as the Supreme Court ended its term, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden said this (here's a Youtube link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9J4a8IcAo)) on the Senate floor:


"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever, until after the political campaign season is over.
And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be committed to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: RDPreus on February 22, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
It's nice to be able to agree with the Vice President once in a while.

 :)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Steverem on February 22, 2016, 05:07:14 PM

The following does not prove one way or another how the Senate should respond to any nomination by President Obama.  But I'd love to hear the Vice President explain why 2016 is different from 1992 (aside from the obvious fact that the parties of the presidents and Senate majorities were then the opposite from today).

In 1992, as the Supreme Court ended its term, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden said this (here's a Youtube link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9J4a8IcAo)) on the Senate floor:


"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever, until after the political campaign season is over.
And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be committed to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

Were I the Senate Majority Leader, when and if this is to come to the floor for debate, I would line the GOP senators in a queue, and have each of them use their time to read this verbatim, and then quietly sit down.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 22, 2016, 07:15:11 PM

I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Slusser agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?
Whatever you and Eileen Smith were discussing, let me clarify the point I made with the support my family stories: real life involves so many variable, unusual or unique, factors that it makes little sense to lay down strict rules about who should officiate at a funeral. As with many pastoral issues, it doesn't have a slide-rule solution. Obviously a pastor has a right to control his sanctuary's use, but if he or she uses that in a closed way, regardless of the family's own expressed needs, he or she should be reevaluated.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 22, 2016, 07:47:38 PM

I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Slusser agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?
Whatever you and Eileen Smith were discussing, let me clarify the point I made with the support my family stories: real life involves so many variable, unusual or unique, factors that it makes little sense to lay down strict rules about who should officiate at a funeral. As with many pastoral issues, it doesn't have a slide-rule solution. Obviously a pastor has a right to control his sanctuary's use, but if he or she uses that in a closed way, regardless of the family's own expressed needs, he or she should be reevaluated.

Peace,
Michael

I believe the question from Pastor Kirchner was 'why' is it appropriate for an ordained family member to preach and/or preside at a loved one's funeral and I thought I answered it upstream.  But I have a habit of typing away and not hitting 'pos.'   Perhaps in another closely-related thread the answer comes in that the community that gathers for a funeral is not necessarily the community that gathers on a Sunday morning.  In fact, there may be times that very few, if any, of the 'regulars' are present.  In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to take a role in the worship.  The intimacy that comes with one who has such a connection to the family - and had such a connection to the deceased - may be healing of itself.  I'd suggest it is as appropriate as working with the family in choosing hymns and readings, if the deceased had not made wishes clear ahead of time.  Last year, a beloved member of our congregation died during lent.  It was somewhat unexpected and the family has known much tragedy, including the murder of their daughter and suicide of their son-in-law, raising grandsons who are not doing well, and their own health issues.  She really wanted a hymn that meant a lot to her -- with a number of alleluias in it.  We went with it.   Appropriate during lent, maybe not.  Appropriate in this instance - yes. 

On the other hand, we've had requests from family members to bring in readers outside the congregation to read or assist at communion along with hymn suggestions for baptisms - which do occur during the regularly-scheduled Sunday service.  On that we decline. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 22, 2016, 08:03:22 PM
  Last year, a beloved member of our congregation died during lent.  It was somewhat unexpected and the family has known much tragedy, including the murder of their daughter and suicide of their son-in-law, raising grandsons who are not doing well, and their own health issues.  She really wanted a hymn that meant a lot to her -- with a number of alleluias in it.  We went with it.   Appropriate during lent, maybe not.  Appropriate in this instance - yes. 

I spent a year as a member of a Byzantine Catholic parish. In the main Good Friday service, I counted 27 Alleluias (may have missed a few). Even during Lent, Christ is risen! We dour Westerners should lighten up.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 22, 2016, 08:29:00 PM
Perhaps in another closely-related thread the answer comes in that the community that gathers for a funeral is not necessarily the community that gathers on a Sunday morning.  In fact, there may be times that very few, if any, of the 'regulars' are present.  In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship.

Why?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 22, 2016, 08:49:15 PM
Perhaps in another closely-related thread the answer comes in that the community that gathers for a funeral is not necessarily the community that gathers on a Sunday morning.  In fact, there may be times that very few, if any, of the 'regulars' are present.  In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship.

Why?

Why not?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 22, 2016, 09:28:09 PM
Because of this odd mania for the idea that the pastoral and sacramental ministry is perversely localized so that if you are not the local pastor, you should not exercise pastoral or sacramental ministry.
It is, I am glad to say, a minority view.⚒⚒
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 22, 2016, 10:36:28 PM
So long as it did not violate fellowship considerations, I personally would not oppose or be offended if the family requested an ordained member of the family conduct the funeral or participate in the funeral.  If we are not in fellowship with the church body that the ordained family member is ordained in, then I would suggest that they could do readings, or offer comments, but not preach.  Also, when the extended family had close ties to a neighboring LCMS church I have invited that pastor to participate in the funeral, although I still conducted it.  As much as is reasonable and possible, without violating long standing policy, I try to accommodate family wishes.

That said, I was very glad to let my mother's pastor conduct here funeral and preach for it.  I did not want to do more than be a pall bearer and be family at the funeral.  Others, no doubt, feel differently.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 23, 2016, 07:59:33 AM
So long as it did not violate fellowship considerations, I personally would not oppose or be offended if the family requested an ordained member of the family conduct the funeral or participate in the funeral.  If we are not in fellowship with the church body that the ordained family member is ordained in, then I would suggest that they could do readings, or offer comments, but not preach.  Also, when the extended family had close ties to a neighboring LCMS church I have invited that pastor to participate in the funeral, although I still conducted it.  As much as is reasonable and possible, without violating long standing policy, I try to accommodate family wishes.

That said, I was very glad to let my mother's pastor conduct here funeral and preach for it.  I did not want to do more than be a pall bearer and be family at the funeral.  Others, no doubt, feel differently.

Indeed, Dan, and I understand that accommodation. The issue here is whether you should step aside, particularly due to a theology of glory and misplaced feelings, a misunderstanding of a gospel proclamation, and a confusion of the funeral itself.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 23, 2016, 08:27:49 AM
So long as it did not violate fellowship considerations, I personally would not oppose or be offended if the family requested an ordained member of the family conduct the funeral or participate in the funeral.  If we are not in fellowship with the church body that the ordained family member is ordained in, then I would suggest that they could do readings, or offer comments, but not preach.  Also, when the extended family had close ties to a neighboring LCMS church I have invited that pastor to participate in the funeral, although I still conducted it.  As much as is reasonable and possible, without violating long standing policy, I try to accommodate family wishes.

That said, I was very glad to let my mother's pastor conduct here funeral and preach for it.  I did not want to do more than be a pall bearer and be family at the funeral.  Others, no doubt, feel differently.

Indeed, Dan, and I understand that accommodation. The issue here is whether you should step aside, particularly due to a theology of glory and misplaced feelings, a misunderstanding of a gospel proclamation, and a confusion of the funeral itself.

I never suggested (I hope) that the pastor should step aside, in fact somewhere upstream I may have noted it was very gracious of a pastor to do so.  I simply state that it may be done and is appropriate - that is, if the pastor does allow an ordained family member to participate, it is appropriate rather than inappropriate.   
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 23, 2016, 08:34:51 AM
So long as it did not violate fellowship considerations, I personally would not oppose or be offended if the family requested an ordained member of the family conduct the funeral or participate in the funeral.  If we are not in fellowship with the church body that the ordained family member is ordained in, then I would suggest that they could do readings, or offer comments, but not preach.  Also, when the extended family had close ties to a neighboring LCMS church I have invited that pastor to participate in the funeral, although I still conducted it.  As much as is reasonable and possible, without violating long standing policy, I try to accommodate family wishes.

That said, I was very glad to let my mother's pastor conduct here funeral and preach for it.  I did not want to do more than be a pall bearer and be family at the funeral.  Others, no doubt, feel differently.

Indeed, Dan, and I understand that accommodation. The issue here is whether you should step aside, particularly due to a theology of glory and misplaced feelings, a misunderstanding of a gospel proclamation, and a confusion of the funeral itself.

I never suggested (I hope) that the pastor should step aside...

I concluded that you indeed suggested that when you wrote,   

"In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship."

and,

"I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside."

Are you now suggesting that the "parish pastor" (there is a reason why he's called that) step aside or not step aside?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 23, 2016, 08:40:44 AM
If a pastor allows the relative of the deceased to conduct funeral rites in that pastor's congregation, that is not "stepping aside." It is providing a different kind of leadership.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 23, 2016, 08:49:08 AM
If a pastor allows the relative of the deceased to conduct funeral rites in that pastor's congregation, that is not "stepping aside." It is providing a different kind of leadership.
Charles, please don't quote or respond to Don Kirchener.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 23, 2016, 09:17:02 AM
The restraining order placed on Brother Austin raises some questions:

What is the average poster on this ALPB Forum suppose to do?

Who is on the most wanted list for hijacking various threads?

How can Lutheran Levity make this Forum great again?
 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 23, 2016, 09:25:09 AM
The restraining order placed on Brother Austin raises some questions:

What is the average poster on this ALPB Forum suppose to do?

Who is on the most wanted list for hijacking various threads?

How can Lutheran Levity make this Forum great again?
It is a two-way restraining order, and Don asked me if he could respond, which historically has not led to good things. So I simply reminded Charles of the policy in place of he and Don not interacting.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 23, 2016, 09:33:07 AM
On behalf of the average posters on this ALPB Forum I want to thank
Moderator Pastor Speckhard for his clarification of the Austin/Kirchner
situation.   As the late, great John Lennon said, "Give Peace A Chance".
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 23, 2016, 09:44:00 AM
But what if I set aside my normal "mean," "nasty," "snarky"  ::) ::) ::) persona and take on the characteristics of a sweet, cuddly, bunny rabbit with a cute twitchy nose and fluffy tail? Can Bunny Rabbit Austin respond? (And my last response to Pastor Kirchner was quite benign.)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 23, 2016, 10:29:51 AM
But what if I set aside my normal "mean," "nasty," "snarky"  ::) ::) ::) persona and take on the characteristics of a sweet, cuddly, bunny rabbit with a cute twitchy nose and fluffy tail? Can Bunny Rabbit Austin respond? (And my last response to Pastor Kirchner was quite benign.)
But then he will respond to you, you'll both get agitated, and pretty soon I'll be, for the umpteenth time, deleting a long string of posts that are nothing but put-downs and general screeching. So no, I'd prefer if you didn't interact with him even benignly in this forum. Stick to Scalia's funeral and the side topic of who ought to preside at funerals without responding to Don. 
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 23, 2016, 10:29:58 AM
Ms Smith,

Charles Austin and I have been ordered not to respond to each other's posts, directly or indirectly. So, I will await your response.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 23, 2016, 11:18:21 AM
Ms Smith,

Charles Austin and I have been ordered not to respond to each other's posts, directly or indirectly. So, I will await your response. 

It is I who used the phrase, "step aside," not Pr. Kirchner.  From a previous post in response to something that Father Slusser wrote, I responded: :  Thank you for sharing this.  I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.   
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 23, 2016, 11:53:39 AM
Ms Smith,

Charles Austin and I have been ordered not to respond to each other's posts, directly or indirectly. So, I will await your response. 

It is I who used the phrase, "step aside," not Pr. Kirchner.  From a previous post in response to something that Father Slusser wrote, I responded: :  Thank you for sharing this.  I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.   

So, are you suggesting that in such a case the parish pastor should step aside or not? How about in this situation?

"In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship."

In such a case should the parish pastor step aside or not?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 23, 2016, 01:27:11 PM
Ms Smith,

Charles Austin and I have been ordered not to respond to each other's posts, directly or indirectly. So, I will await your response. 

It is I who used the phrase, "step aside," not Pr. Kirchner.  From a previous post in response to something that Father Slusser wrote, I responded: :  Thank you for sharing this.  I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.   

So, are you suggesting that in such a case the parish pastor should step aside or not? How about in this situation?

"In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship."

In such a case should the parish pastor step aside or not?

Oh dear!  I thought I was simply clarifying a point of authorship.  First, and now very clear to me, "step aside' was a misstep on my part.  I write for a few organizations and I tend to be less formal on this Forum. 

The example above is exactly what I was pointing to in suggesting that a pastor may allow an ordained family member (of a denomination with whom the church has pulpit and altar fellowship) have a role of the funeral service, if the parish pastor believes that it is within the wishes of the family and will help the family.  My point was that the funeral service is not one of the regularly scheduled services of the congregation.  The members of the congregation may - or may not - attend the funeral.  But even if members of the congregation do attend, the community is usually quite different than the Sunday morning community.  Given how difficult it is to suffer the death of a loved one, the pastor may do certain things to accommodate the family and one of those things may be that s/he invites another ordained pastor (that is, family member) to have a role -- preach/preside/read or some combination thereof. 

I shared the story of a family who did not see eye-to-eye with the pastor and (as I've seen happen with 'legacy' memberships, e.g., parents, grandparents) the family simple called in two other clergy when their daughter died.  In another situation, a toddler died in a tragic accident in a congregation in NY.    The person who had been pastor to this congregation had, months earlier, accepted a call to another congregation and a new pastor was already in place.  The family reached out to their former pastor and she declined, telling the couple that they needed to be under the care of the new pastor.  I'd say she was spot on. 

That's what started all of this Pastor Kirchner.  How far, if at all, does one go in helping a family in a time of grief.   

I will say that I can't imagine anyone other than my pastor - and I've several close friends who are pastors as well as having served as deacon to Bishop Stephen Bouman - presiding and preaching at my funeral.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 23, 2016, 02:17:33 PM
The example above is exactly what I was pointing to in suggesting that a pastor may allow an ordained family member (of a denomination with whom the church has pulpit and altar fellowship) have a role of the funeral service, if the parish pastor believes that it is within the wishes of the family and will help the family. 

Fully in agreement, Ms. Smith.

Thanks.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: FrPeters on February 23, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
On his death bed, my father requested of me that I preach and preside at his funeral.  This I said, I could not do, except his own pastor give permission.  When I spoke with my dad's own pastor, who also gave my dad his last Holy Communion the day he died, I asked if he would allow me to preach and fulfill my father's request but I deliberately asked him to preside at the service.  He graciously allowed me to preach and offered to have me do everything.  In the end, I preached (who can deny his father a last request although it was not my preference) and he presided at the liturgy and the committal.  The point of this is that nearly every where I have gone I have known LCMS pastors to be as gracious.  If one does not presume right but requests privilege, hardly any LCMS pastor I know would give second thought to acceding to the request.  I have done so many times with respect to weddings and funerals.  I expect this is typical across the board for all Lutherans.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 23, 2016, 05:39:05 PM
It is as I noted above, Pastor Peters (although not, apparently in my current bunny rabbit persona); namely, that pastors who invite or let other pastors preach and/or preside in these situations do not "step aside," nor do they abrogate their pastoral oversight. On the contrary, they exercise it in valuable ways.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 23, 2016, 06:34:10 PM
It is as I noted above, Pastor Peters (although not, apparently in my current bunny rabbit persona); namely, that pastors who invite or let other pastors preach and/or preside in these situations do not "step aside," nor do they abrogate their pastoral oversight. On the contrary, they exercise it in valuable ways.


I agree.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 23, 2016, 06:55:56 PM
The example above is exactly what I was pointing to in suggesting that a pastor may allow an ordained family member (of a denomination with whom the church has pulpit and altar fellowship) have a role of the funeral service, if the parish pastor believes that it is within the wishes of the family and will help the family. 

Fully in agreement, Ms. Smith.

Thanks.

Thank you!
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 23, 2016, 09:04:19 PM
It is very easy for a family whose pastor refuses to allow an ordained relative to preside at a funeral to take the funeral to the funeral home and bypass the pastor and the church building altogether. Some funeral homes encourage services at their facilities which are built for the movement of a casket. Some congregational buildings are not.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 23, 2016, 09:05:09 PM
It's an interesting thing, this "request of the deceased" deal. I think about my father-in-law. He was a member of my congregation at the time of his death, so it fell to me to conduct the funeral--a great privilege, though not easy. One of his sons is also an ELCA pastor, so I invited him to assist, both in the planning and in the service itself; other of his children served as lectors, grandchildren as pallbearers, etc. Dad had filled out our church's "instructions for my funeral" form, and as my brother-in-law and I looked over it, one thing we noticed was that he had checked the box indicating he did not want the service to include the Eucharist. I said to my bro, "I propose we overrule him." "Absolutely, I agree," he replied. Everybody else in the family who cared agreed as well. So it was a full Eucharist, despite Dad's instructions. We chalked it up to his Norwegian piety which just wasn't much accustomed to the Eucharist at a funeral--though he had progressed greatly in his Eucharistic piety through the years, and was firmly in favor of weekly Eucharist.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 23, 2016, 09:45:24 PM
It is very easy for a family whose pastor refuses to allow an ordained relative to preside at a funeral to take the funeral to the funeral home and bypass the pastor and the church building altogether. Some funeral homes encourage services at their facilities which are built for the movement of a casket. Some congregational buildings are not.

 ::)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peterm on February 24, 2016, 10:14:02 AM
I had a situation last year in my parish where the son and grandson of the deceased member are also ELCA Pastors serving in other synods.  I offered to have them assist in any way, and they indicated that they would like to help serve the Eucharist, but otherwise they wanted to be "Just family." They helped with the planning of the service and it was beautiful.  It was good for the congregation to see these two "sons" of the parish be involved in the ways that they chose to be involved. In cases where I am aware that there are clergy in the family I often invite them to share.  What I will not do is share with someone who gets ordained online for a one time deal.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 24, 2016, 10:45:02 AM
I had a situation last year in my parish where the son and grandson of the deceased member are also ELCA Pastors serving in other synods.  I offered to have them assist in any way, and they indicated that they would like to help serve the Eucharist, but otherwise they wanted to be "Just family." They helped with the planning of the service and it was beautiful.  It was good for the congregation to see these two "sons" of the parish be involved in the ways that they chose to be involved. In cases where I am aware that there are clergy in the family I often invite them to share.  What I will not do is share with someone who gets ordained online for a one time deal.


Do people "ordained" online ask to participate in funerals or marriages in your churches?  I would be extremely uncomfortable with that!


My sense had been that people get "ordained" online so that they can preside over civil/secular weddings.  Many states know full well that this is happening and expressly permit/encourage it.  And indeed, in one such state, after triple-checking the law and the way in which it's applied, I myself jumped through this ordination hoop in order to preside at a wedding.  The ceremony was entirely secular.  I would not ever presume to preside over a religious wedding.


(The only tenet of the entity that "ordained" me is that any competent adult of any faith or of no faith should be able to preside over civil wedding ceremonies.  For the state at issue, this was enough.  That state has since changed its law, expressly permitting anyone -- "ordained" or not -- to preside at civil weddings.)   
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 24, 2016, 11:23:17 AM
You do not need to be ordained to preside at a wedding. And the state does not care whether the person presiding is religious or not, hence judges and other civil magistrates often officiate.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: peterm on February 24, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
I had a situation last year in my parish where the son and grandson of the deceased member are also ELCA Pastors serving in other synods.  I offered to have them assist in any way, and they indicated that they would like to help serve the Eucharist, but otherwise they wanted to be "Just family." They helped with the planning of the service and it was beautiful.  It was good for the congregation to see these two "sons" of the parish be involved in the ways that they chose to be involved. In cases where I am aware that there are clergy in the family I often invite them to share.  What I will not do is share with someone who gets ordained online for a one time deal.


Do people "ordained" online ask to participate in funerals or marriages in your churches?  I would be extremely uncomfortable with that!


My sense had been that people get "ordained" online so that they can preside over civil/secular weddings.  Many states know full well that this is happening and expressly permit/encourage it.  And indeed, in one such state, after triple-checking the law and the way in which it's applied, I myself jumped through this ordination hoop in order to preside at a wedding.  The ceremony was entirely secular.  I would not ever presume to preside over a religious wedding.


(The only tenet of the entity that "ordained" me is that any competent adult of any faith or of no faith should be able to preside over civil wedding ceremonies.  For the state at issue, this was enough.  That state has since changed its law, expressly permitting anyone -- "ordained" or not -- to preside at civil weddings.)   

In the last 8 months I have had 3 such requests because one of my churches is the quintessential "cute little country church."  The request goes like this.  We would like to use your church but a friend of ours is getting ordained on line so that they can do the ceremony.  Our policies for funerals and weddings now reads that while I am happy to share these services, there needs to be something other than an online certificate to indicate authority, and I need to be involved in some way since I hold the Call to the parish.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 24, 2016, 12:18:26 PM
I had a situation last year in my parish where the son and grandson of the deceased member are also ELCA Pastors serving in other synods.  I offered to have them assist in any way, and they indicated that they would like to help serve the Eucharist, but otherwise they wanted to be "Just family." They helped with the planning of the service and it was beautiful.  It was good for the congregation to see these two "sons" of the parish be involved in the ways that they chose to be involved. In cases where I am aware that there are clergy in the family I often invite them to share.  What I will not do is share with someone who gets ordained online for a one time deal.


Do people "ordained" online ask to participate in funerals or marriages in your churches?  I would be extremely uncomfortable with that!


My sense had been that people get "ordained" online so that they can preside over civil/secular weddings.  Many states know full well that this is happening and expressly permit/encourage it.  And indeed, in one such state, after triple-checking the law and the way in which it's applied, I myself jumped through this ordination hoop in order to preside at a wedding.  The ceremony was entirely secular.  I would not ever presume to preside over a religious wedding.


(The only tenet of the entity that "ordained" me is that any competent adult of any faith or of no faith should be able to preside over civil wedding ceremonies.  For the state at issue, this was enough.  That state has since changed its law, expressly permitting anyone -- "ordained" or not -- to preside at civil weddings.)   

In the last 8 months I have had 3 such requests because one of my churches is the quintessential "cute little country church."  The request goes like this.  We would like to use your church but a friend of ours is getting ordained on line so that they can do the ceremony.  Our policies for funerals and weddings now reads that while I am happy to share these services, there needs to be something other than an online certificate to indicate authority, and I need to be involved in some way since I hold the Call to the parish.


I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.  But I am.  Yikes.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 24, 2016, 12:26:45 PM
You do not need to be ordained to preside at a wedding. And the state does not care whether the person presiding is religious or not, hence judges and other civil magistrates often officiate.


No state law requires officiants at weddings to be religious or to be ordained.  However, many (most?) state statutes create limited categories of people who may preside at weddings.  Those categories always include (i) judges/civil magistrates and (ii) authorized religious leaders.  Historically, in many places, if you did not fall into one of these categories, you could not preside at a wedding. 


That's changed a great deal in recent years.  Some states have changed their statutes to expressly permit pretty much anyone to officiate.  Other states have retained their old marriage statutes, but local officials have grown ever more willing to accept "ordinations" that they once would have rejected as shams.  In this way, these states effectively now permit virtually anyone to preside.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: pearson on February 24, 2016, 12:36:48 PM

No state law requires officiants at weddings to be religious or to be ordained.  However, many (most?) state statutes create limited categories of people who may preside at weddings.  Those categories always include (i) judges/civil magistrates and (ii) authorized religious leaders.  Historically, in many places, if you did not fall into one of these categories, you could not preside at a wedding. 


That's changed a great deal in recent years.  Some states have changed their statutes to expressly permit pretty much anyone to officiate.  Other states have retained their old marriage statutes, but local officials have grown ever more willing to accept "ordinations" that they once would have rejected as shams.  In this way, these states effectively now permit virtually anyone to preside.


My daughter is getting married on March 13, and I am officiating at the wedding ceremony.  When I asked my synodical bishop several months ago about the propriety of this, he told me that, in Texas, "if the couple honestly believes that you are authorized to perform weddings, then you are by that fact authorized to perform their wedding."  I guess it's the anti-realist version of state marriage law.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Charles Austin on February 24, 2016, 02:39:46 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 24, 2016, 02:55:06 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.


I think that most of the US is moving in this direction, which makes sense to me.  In DC, I had to get formal court approval, which was time-consuming and a little costly.  (I didn't mind the time or expense, given my friendship with the couple being married.  But the burden of getting a court order likely dissuaded many would-be officiants.)  DC has since opened things up so that a court order no longer is needed.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 24, 2016, 02:58:24 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: RPG on February 24, 2016, 03:02:20 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy.

Do they serve as court chaplains to Hizzoner?  ;)
RPG+
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: James_Gale on February 24, 2016, 03:07:41 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(


The Bronx didn't have its own office for handling such things? 


I spent a good deal of time in the federal and state courthouses at that subway stop.
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 24, 2016, 03:24:28 PM
In California, it doesn't even take that. Just fill in the box that says "If a religious official, denomination."
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: John_Hannah on February 24, 2016, 03:45:48 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

The Bronx didn't have its own office for handling such things? 


I spent a good deal of time in the federal and state courthouses at that subway stop.

Everyone had to go to City Hall then. When the clerk completed everything, she said, "Now you can marry in all five boroughs." As I rode home on the #6 Train, I wondered how they could possibly check every license to insure the officiant was properly registered. With such a high level of immigration to the city from all states in the U.S., I imagine that someone's uncle has come from Kansas to conduct a wedding without any idea that it's not allowed. I'm equally sure that no one ever knew the difference and the couple lived happily ever after.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Matt Staneck on February 24, 2016, 04:02:53 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

This is actually still the practice. I think Pr. Austin presented a much abbreviated version of what you laid out.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on February 27, 2016, 12:46:17 PM
Now that we've gotten over the euphoria generated from Jesus of Nazareth actually being mentioned in a national forum, one view:

http://ihoppe.com/blog/?p=4656

Rolf Preus has posted online:

"Mr. [Robert] Baker, I asked you to show me where in the sermon under discussion the preacher said what you said he said when you wrote:

'Let's rather focus on the clear fact that thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of persons, not to mention a few Jewish members of our nation's highest court, heard about Jesus Christ and Him crucified for the forgiveness of sins.'

I asked you 'where the preacher preached Jesus Christ and him crucified for the forgiveness of sins.'...You haven’t answered yet.

That’s okay. Don’t bother. He didn’t. The preacher didn’t say what you said he said..."
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 27, 2016, 02:24:38 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

This is actually still the practice. I think Pr. Austin presented a much abbreviated version of what you laid out.

M. Staneck

Yes - I thought this might be nationwide until a particular experience in Las Vegas, where a parish family decided on a "destination" wedding.  AFter many delays I finally acquired a One Day Certification in Nevada, just for the day of the wedding.  That seemed weird enough.   However, since the wedding was at an area outdoors from one of the hotel/casinos, we discovered there were separate contractual rules.  So I brought the message, but the opening songs and the vows themselves were conducted by one of the casino ministers and.....an Elvis impersonator.  Thank you very much.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Steven W Bohler on February 27, 2016, 04:39:46 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

This is actually still the practice. I think Pr. Austin presented a much abbreviated version of what you laid out.

M. Staneck

Yes - I thought this might be nationwide until a particular experience in Las Vegas, where a parish family decided on a "destination" wedding.  AFter many delays I finally acquired a One Day Certification in Nevada, just for the day of the wedding.  That seemed weird enough.   However, since the wedding was at an area outdoors from one of the hotel/casinos, we discovered there were separate contractual rules.  So I brought the message, but the opening songs and the vows themselves were conducted by one of the casino ministers and.....an Elvis impersonator.  Thank you very much.

Dave Benke

Uh-oh, conducting joint worship services again!  Will you ever learn?
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: LutherMan on February 27, 2016, 04:53:03 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

This is actually still the practice. I think Pr. Austin presented a much abbreviated version of what you laid out.

M. Staneck

Yes - I thought this might be nationwide until a particular experience in Las Vegas, where a parish family decided on a "destination" wedding.  AFter many delays I finally acquired a One Day Certification in Nevada, just for the day of the wedding.  That seemed weird enough.   However, since the wedding was at an area outdoors from one of the hotel/casinos, we discovered there were separate contractual rules.  So I brought the message, but the opening songs and the vows themselves were conducted by one of the casino ministers and.....an Elvis impersonator.  Thank you very much.

Dave Benke

Uh-oh, conducting joint worship services again!  Will you ever learn?
LOLZ!
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 27, 2016, 05:21:35 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

This is actually still the practice. I think Pr. Austin presented a much abbreviated version of what you laid out.

M. Staneck

Yes - I thought this might be nationwide until a particular experience in Las Vegas, where a parish family decided on a "destination" wedding.  AFter many delays I finally acquired a One Day Certification in Nevada, just for the day of the wedding.  That seemed weird enough.   However, since the wedding was at an area outdoors from one of the hotel/casinos, we discovered there were separate contractual rules.  So I brought the message, but the opening songs and the vows themselves were conducted by one of the casino ministers and.....an Elvis impersonator.  Thank you very much.

Dave Benke

Uh-oh, conducting joint worship services again!  Will you ever learn?
LOLZ!


I'm not sure that I would call an Elvis outfit a liturgical vestment. Thus, "worship service" might be a stretch for what it was. :)
Title: Re: R.I.P Justice Scalia
Post by: Dave Benke on February 27, 2016, 09:52:02 PM
In New York City, all it takes is registration with the city clergy. Fill out a form, stating your religious affiliation (or lack of it), and you get on the list of approved officiants.

That's changed a lot in 23 years then. I had to take my ordination certificate (from the frame), the LCMS Directory with my name in it, and the Call Document from Trinity, Bronx (one of the 5 boroughs). The only fortuitous feature of that exercise was that the subway from my neighborhood stops right at City Hall.   :(

This is actually still the practice. I think Pr. Austin presented a much abbreviated version of what you laid out.

M. Staneck

Yes - I thought this might be nationwide until a particular experience in Las Vegas, where a parish family decided on a "destination" wedding.  AFter many delays I finally acquired a One Day Certification in Nevada, just for the day of the wedding.  That seemed weird enough.   However, since the wedding was at an area outdoors from one of the hotel/casinos, we discovered there were separate contractual rules.  So I brought the message, but the opening songs and the vows themselves were conducted by one of the casino ministers and.....an Elvis impersonator.  Thank you very much.

Dave Benke

Uh-oh, conducting joint worship services again!  Will you ever learn?

If someone would have offered me a joint as "Elvis" sang "Love Me Tender," I don't think I would have refused.  It would have been a service to me.

Dave Benke