Religion & Law

Well, this piece, by Frank-Paul Sampino, at Dappled Things, is certainly right at the heart of many conversations we've had at MOJ over the years.  Here is Sampino's central claim (which he elaborates and defends in the essay):

Generally speaking, a Catholic judge?s moral obligation is no more, and no less, than to apply the civil law as he understands it, regardless of the outcome of particular cases. I maintain that a Catholic judge need not recuse himself, or resign, or stretch the law to achieve a morally acceptable outcome. With rare exceptions, he may simply decide the case as he believes the appropriate civil laws require.

This is, I think, pretty much my view, too.  I am not quite on board, though, here:

To expect judges to bring political and moral considerations to bear on their interpretations of the law is to undermine the whole purpose of judging.

This is not necessarily true.  There will, it seems to me, sometimes be "legal" questions presented to judges that require -- because they do, in fact, invite and authorize -- judges to bring "moral considerations" to bear.