But there were other factors that went into the late associate justice's decision-making; important factors that the mainstream press is either ignoring or under-reporting. A closer scrutiny reveals many of his key decisions were not only less than monumental but often inconsistent and reflected dogmatic religious beliefs.

Inconsistency

Antonin Scalia used his powerfully worded , take no prisoners decisions to push the court to the political right . He is often credited with reviving the doctrine of originalism -- the concept that United States Constitution should be interpreted as it must have been at the time of its adoption.

As much as I disagree with originalism, Scalia often practiced originalism only when it was convenient to advancing a conservative agenda.  Perhaps Pace University law professor Bennett L. Gershman put it best:

Sometimes Scalia claimed to be a textualist, sometimes not. Sometimes he claimed to be an originalist, sometimes not. Sometimes he glorified judicial restraint and vilified his colleagues for their "Czarist arrogance" in expanding constitutional rights. Sometimes he was a clear example of judicial activism.

As Frederick Clarkson commented, "What is odd about Scalia is that for someone who is a literalist and, as I recall a constitutional originalist, relying upon his subjective Catholic notions of providence concerning the death penalty seems to me to be a far greater legal reach than Roe v. Wade's finding of a right to privacy."

But perhaps more importantly, Scalia deviated when it suited him. This was apparent in the majority decision rendered in for Bush v. Gore. And as journalist Patricia Miller recently noted,

But he [Scalia] was at the forefront of a new kind of morality--one that merged conservative Catholic social teaching with the pro-business, small government mentality of the late twentieth century Republican Party. And it was here that Scalia's "originalism" was most useful, because it allowed him to assert that there were no new rights under the Constitution, which conveniently left intact the status quo regarding sexual morality and minority rights, while championing the long-standing "legitimate" rights under the Constitution of business and gun owners.

As well as:

Despite his evident distaste for the social acceptance of homosexuality, he claimed that he was only sticking to his belief in originalism. "Don't paint me as anti-gay or anti-abortion or anything else. All I'm doing on the Supreme Court is opining about who should decide," he said in 2015.

But this self-justification often didn't hold up in reality, especially on the issues that he really cared about: those who reinforced conservative Catholic sexual morality. As John Allen notes in Crux, he had occasion in 2012 to talk to Scalia about the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Scalia told him that if the Catholic bishops wanted an exemption, "they should try to get it through the democratic process." But then he turned around and voted in the Hobby Lobby case for a much more consequential and precedent-shattering exemption for for-profit business owners rather than insist that they go through the "democratic process."

The decision not only contradicted what he told Allen, but his own logic in the foundational religious freedom case Employment Division v. Smith that religious exemptions shouldn't be provided to reasonable, generally applicable laws because they would make a hodge-podge out of the law. Except when they should. It's worth noting that Smith dealt with an exemption for drug use for a minority religion, while Hobby Lobby for the right of male, Christian corporate owners to deny contraception to women.

Religious Dogmatism

This brings us to the widely echoed notion that Scalia was a: "devout Catholic." The more accurate description would be "Opus Dei Catholic."

Antonin Scalia may not have been an actual member of Opus Dei.  There have been carefully worded denials on his behalf (His son Paul, however, is in the Order of the Holy Cross Opus Dei's priestly order as well as being affiliated with Fr. Frank Pavone's Priests for Life..)

 Justice Scalia was most likely an Opus Dei cooperator -- a term used by Opus Dei to describe someone not officially a member, but sympathetic and supportive of its goals.

In fact, he attended St. Catherine of Siena Church in Falls Church, Virginia, St. Catherine's has a strong Opus Dei presence, complete with Sunday morning Latin Mass. It is the Washington, DC parish for many Opus Dei members and cooperators.

Opus Dei displays many tendencies that are contrary to mainstream American Catholic thought. This is evidenced by its ignoring many of the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council such saying Mass in the local language facing those attending -- instead of in Latin, facing away from the faithful. Some of Opus Dei founder Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer's beliefs, besides being factually incorrect (such as on the creation of the Roman papacy and the concept of papal infallibility) reflect some disturbing rules for behavior.

In two of Escrvia's books, The Way and In Love with the Church, he urged secrecy in his apostolate (The Way, No. 839), defines compromise as laziness and weakness (The Way, No. 54) demands blind obedience to Church teachings.

Escriva also purged his followers to put away their scruples (The Way, Nos. 258 and 259), seemingly teaching that the ends always justify the means. Perhaps maxims 258 and 259 might explain Scalia's and Thomas's ability to abandon both their states' rights and strict constitutional ist constructionist principles in Bush vs. Gore.

In a piece I posted several years ago, I noted the following about the late Justice Scalia:

In an article entitled God's Justice and Ours' Justice Antonin Scalia stated: "Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court."

Let us return to a quote Scalia gave a few years back:

"Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe, and has least support in the churchgoing United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul. But losing this life, in exchange for the next?"

Such a statement exhibits a rather cavalier attitude towards life and death issues. And although Justice Scalia claims that his "...views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court," his actions may indicate otherwise.

Over the last 30 years I have had many conversations regarding Justice Scalia. Invariably, I would close these discussions with the comment, "As an American Catholic and as an attorney, I wish it were Mario Cuomo sitting in his place on the Supreme Court." Cuomo, also a New York attorney and Catholic was far more representative of mainstream American Catholics. At least in my eyes it was the former New York governor who is better described as a devout Catholic. And he acted as one without imposing his religious beliefs on his fellow citizens.

As for Scalia, I will let historian Sean Wilentz (from 2002) provide the final contrast:

There have always been Americans who have thought as Justice Scalia does now. In 1781 a Massachusetts minister, Jonas Clark, preached that religion is ''the source of liberty, the soul of government and the life of a people.'' But ever since the Revolution, this has been a minority view, even an eccentric one, among Americans. It has had no appreciable place in our constitutional history because the framers rejected it.

They had many reasons for doing so, not least the factionalism mentioned by Madison. They had an idea that sovereignty rested with a free people, even if some among those people didn't believe in God, or in the same God, or in the same way.