“Well religious beliefs aren’t reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it’s God tells you. It’s not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable?"

The above is a recent quote of Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia, which haunts me as I read articles on the discussions and published summaries of the Vatican Synod of Bishops currently in session. Within the context of the Supreme Court and, by inference, the whole of the criminal justice system, many actors are convinced that a sincerely held belief is a sufficient basis for acting contrary to the law of the land with impunity. On the other hand, the good bishops make repeated claims to nature, natural law, the natural order, revelation, and reasonableness in order to provide support for a variety of moral and ethical stances. In addition, the tools of inductive and/or deductive reasoning are to get us or at least "all men of goodwill" to a singular position on such matters. (The sexist phrase has been chosen with intent.)

I would like to hear a comment from Cardinals Dolan or Burke on Justice Scalia's statement. Is there a way to bridge this divide? 

I also can't help but think, "Wouldn't Scalia make one crazy bishop?"