AmericanPapist Comments
I do not believe he should have been denied communion. But to exploit it for further political gain is just as ugly. And this:
"Any Voter Guide even hinting at a Catholic duty as a matter of faith and morals to vote against Senator Obama is seriously in error."
Well, any book even hinting at a Catholic duty as a matter of faith and morals to vote FOR Senator Obama (i.e., yours) is seriously in error.
The first step towards each mistake found in this sequeuence of events is a loss of humility.
Insight Scoop had an interesting post on this subject, as you are probably aware. For the sake of some of your readers I bring it up here. They should be sure to check out the links at the end of the post.
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/...vote-for-
s.html
"Perhaps there was a Providential hand at work using [this event] to teach a lesson to a larger congregation. The lesson? Any Voter Guide even hinting at a Catholic duty as a matter of faith and morals to vote against Senator Obama is seriously in error."
Unlike a book by a providential pimp for the Obamessiah?
"Beyond life issues"????? If you're not alive THERE ARE NO ISSUES!!!!!
Kmiec was my Property professor in law school. To be honest I was surprised to find out he was considered a devoutly Catholic conservative long after the semester had begun, given some of his views. But then again the great Charlie Rice was my faculty advisor so you can draw your own conclusions.
Kmiec thinks that backing Obama is good for pro-life. Okay, well, Quisling thought (apparently, sincerely, if in hindsight absurdly) that throwing in with the Nazis (!) was in Norway's long-term interest. So. he made his splash, was quickly stiffed by Hitler, and ended up leaving his name as a new noun for traitorous collaboration with a deadly enemy.
Sub sole nihil novum. Pro dolore.
as for the communion -- the question is -- can/sould a non-catholic receive the Eucharist ? well, the answer is no, considering that person does not believe in the real presense. Therefore if a person is living his life a a non-catholic ( that is not following the statutes and beliefs of the church) ought that person receive the Eucharist ? well the answer is No. I can on. As Ctahoics our actions speak as stronngly as out beliefs. If our actions have scandalous ramifications than why, o why, do we do them ?
Somehow, some way, Doug jumped the shark. Twisting the Church's clear and consistent teachings on life issues to favor the presidential candidate who never met an infanticide he didn't like. Something's not right under his hood. We may eventually get the real story.
"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004
For those cafeteria Catholics here who post idiotic comments that is the Bishop of Rome.
So you have a real clear choice, either you stand with Kmeic, Kennedy, Sebelius, Biden, Pelosi and Kerry or you stand with the Holy See!!!
Regarding the proportionality issue I have repeatedly made the claim that even taking abortion out of the equation it would still be wrong to support Obama. The inherently socialistic platform of the Democrats is not in conformity with the social teachings of the Catholic Church despite their mutual interest in solving social problems.
Of course no voting guide would be necessary if the Catholic intellegentia/politicians had conformed to the teaching of the Church and then used their position to inform the laity. In truth the visible (those who appear in the main stream media msm) Catholic leaders have sold out their mother the Church for the political gains they seek. As Thomas More says at the end of the play:
"Why Richard it profits not a man to sell his soul for the whole world - but (to sell it) for Wales?"
I will never understand the attitude that the policies advocated by the Left are somehow consonant with Catholic teaching.
I'll stipulate that many policies advocated by the Right aren't any more consonant with Catholic teaching.
But no one's out there telling me that it's a "natural fit" as a Catholic to vote with the Right.
We may one day come to find that Kmiec started taking an antidepressant or something, thereby changing his opinions or personality.
And for that matter, his previous work with Mitt Romney's campaign may have given him some disturbing insight into the real attitudes of RINO politicians regarding abortion, etc. (as in there's no hope of getting rid of it because the RINOs such as Romney aren't really pro life, but just pay lip service).
But it might just be personal - I've read somewhere (I apologize for not including a link) that he was once considered a potential nominee to the Supreme Court. Perhaps he's betting on Obama to put him there since McCain, having won the Republican primary, isn't going to do one of Romney's men a favor. When it comes to appointment decisions, it's all about who you know. Kmiec is now in Obama's inner circle and has positioned himself to win the prize.
And if Obama wins the election and ends up nominating someone else for the Supreme Court, expect some kind of falling out.
The name "Benedict Arnold" comes to mind...
I know a guy who's always been very pro-life, and who drank the Kool-Aid for Obama. He was tricked. Early on, he didn't find the material about Obama and the partial birth abortion stuff, and so forth, and he didn't like Hillary.
So, being a loyal pro-life Democrat, he allowed himself to commit. Then he got all enthused.
Now, I haven't been able to talk to him for a good couple of months, so I don't know whether he's figured out that he was tricked, or whether he's going to tell himself that really Obama isn't all that pro-abortion. But it's very hard to admit that you've been wrong, once you've committed.
That's pretty much the whole problem with overturning Roe v Wade, for that matter. People who committed to it and supported it, or actually got involved in having or procuring abortion, have trouble Wading out again. People who never committed to it or were too young to make decisions until now, have much less pride and fewer mistakes to overcome.
So it's probably not so much betrayal with Kmiec as "I've gotten lost, and I'll do anything to avoid admitting that I'm lost, turning around and heading back, or getting out of the car to ask directions."
Can we stop calling him a conservative catholic? Good gosh, if still can be considered conservative what is Joe Biden?
Kmiec must be desperate for those 15 minutes of fame. He's no longer Catholic. Let's forget him. Tom
"Beyond life issues"?! Would Kmiec be so glib if it was "Beyond slavery issues" or "Beyond racism issues"? Paging Mr Kmiec: There is no getting "beyond life issues". Not for Catholics, anyway.
"He's no longer Catholic. Let's forget him."
Let's not go too far here.
Kmiec's thinking on this issue is disastrously awry. He has lost whatever status he had among many non-dissenting Catholics as a trustworthy Catholic thinker. A few hints suggest he may not be inculpable for his error.
But this is not to say "He's no longer Catholic." Canonically, theologically, ecclesially, I doubt such any such judgment is sustainable.
As for "Let's forget him" -- well, as a source of trustworthy Catholic thought, yes. But not necessarily in any other sense. Let's remember him -- in our prayers, and continue to seek to rebut his arguments in charity and hope to turn him from his error.
"as a matter of faith and morals"
This is code language.
This is the old carnard of, if the Church has not absolutely, explicitly, and officially declared this to be an infallible teaching, then I'm free to do whatever I want.
In Archbishop Chaput's new book Render Unto Caesar (p.210) he quotes a 1998 Bishops statement Living the Gospel of Life based on JPII's encyclical Evangelium Vitae. I have slightly condensed paragraph 23 of the document that he quotes.
Adopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues . . . Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. . .racism, hunger, employment, education, housing and healthcare. Catholics should involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues. But being "right" in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the "rightness" of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.
A: Thomas, none the three quotes you cite from Faithful Citizenship imply that it is a duty to vote against Obama (provided that it is not with the intent of supporting his stance on abortion, which is taken for granted in this context). Saying that Obama's abortion position should give us pause is different from saying it is a duty to vote against him. ("Hinting" is another story, and probably not worth talking about, but more on that below.)
B: With regard to the Lori quote in the update, I contend it is in fact mistaken. Such statements are oversimplifications, not helpful in thinking carefully about this election--repeating it over and over will not change that. If one is so sure that abortion is the preeminent issue, then why not use a more relevant statistic and put it in context of the number of lives that hang in the balance with regard to other issues?
C: Kmiec's conclusion that Catholics can support Obama in good faith is based on the fact that his bishop and the priest himself apologized for denying him communion--admitting that he is a Catholic in good standing affirms that a Catholic in good standing may publically support Obama (while publically disagreeing with his abortion stance). It would have been a good faith effort on your part to at least explain his reasoning. Then you could criticize it if you wanted. At it is, you make him sound like an idiot and then construct a straw man argument, conflating the issues of whether voting for Obama is morally permissable with whether Obama is a "Catholic natural."
D: You're right that Kmiec went too far in using the words "even hinting." But if that's your concern, then maybe this post could have been more focused still. (:
Still, I think Kmiec gets some things wrong, and I appreciate you pointing out that your reasoning could also disqualify McCain. (I think I'm now leaning toward not voting for either, myself. Obama primarily because of abortion, McCain primarily because of war.) Maybe Dorothy Day was right to say about voting: "It only encourages them." (She never voted, herself, preferring to focus on personal action and strictly avoiding cooperation with evil of any kind.)
When I read in the more recent post by AmPap, "Doug Kmiec, the most notable Catholic with a previous pro-life record who publicly supports Barack Obama...", I said to myself.... "Who???"
That about sums it up for me. For the general public and Catholics at-large, he's a relative nobody trying to be a somebody in the political world.
Not to diminish his dangerous & faulty assumptions about Catholic teaching, but honestly... I really said to myself, "Who??? Who is this guy? I've never heard of him before now."
("Hinting" is another story, and probably not worth talking about, but more on that below.)
Yes, hinting is another story. Unfortunately that is the term used by Kmiec. He is clearly wrong since the Church officially "hints" very strongly that supporting someone with a pro-abortion and, in my opinion a clear pro-infanticide, agenda is morally wrong. His other stances don't make up for his abortion stance.
Kmiec's conclusion that Catholics can support Obama in good faith is based on the fact that his bishop and the priest himself apologized for denying him communion--admitting that he is a Catholic in good standing affirms that a Catholic in good standing may publically support Obama (while publically disagreeing with his abortion stance).
No. That is not the basis of Kmiec's conclusion. Cardinal Mahoney is, with whatever respect is due, not a great follower of the Church's teachings himself. He is considered one of the most "liberal" (i.e. unorthodox) cardinals around. Those of us in California are anxiously awaiting the day he is up for mandatory retirement.
Note that the priest was forced to apologize. Kmiec's argument is based on the tired old meme that sure, Obama's pro-abortion in the extreme, but he's got so many other good things going for him I can overlook that. The error in that thinking is the fact that Obama's other stances aren't enough to overcome his extreme position on abortion. (Did I happen to note he opposes life saving measures for infants BORN ALIVE after a botched abortion? Yes, according to Obama it is fine and dandy to withhold medical treatment from a living breathing child just to ensure that the "mother" (I use that term loosely) is not "burdened" with a child after choosing to kill it in the womb.)
Kmiec has jumped the shark, drank the kool-aid, sold his soul, however you want to describe it he is just flat wrong.
The difficult point in the current election is the distinctions between the two parties are becoming more gray. Democrats are openly pro-abortion. And some of the Republicans know a little pro-life rhetoric and some big ones are openly pro-abortion. Many Republicans give little tidbits of empty rhetoric to the pro-life cause to garner votes. Dorothy Day's quote is quite apropos here.
Prior to Palen, I agree that neither candidate deserves a vote and that is the only thing they really want from us. If they want it, they have to give us something in return, not just more empty promises.
It is for these reasons that Kmiec's move resonates.
But Kmiec is doing what many Republicans (and Catholics) do. They are looking only at the candidate and not the party as a whole.
The Republicans are as pro-choice today as the Democrats were in 1973. How many Republicans are opposed to abortion in the cases of rape, incest and mother's health? How many will go after the acknowledged root of abortion, contraception?
On the other hand, we have the Democrats who are rightly compared to Nazis or perhaps more accurately to their ancestry of Communists or perhaps a marriage of the two hellish regimes.
On the other hand, McCain is hardly a pro-life candidate. His utilitarian approach to embryonic destruction would make Hitler and Sanger proud. Santorum points to his reluctant support of pro-life legislation. If a candidate is personally fine with the utilitarian use of babies, why will he legislate against it? Let us not fool ourselves in thinking McCain is going to give much to the pro-life movement.
Another argument that Kmiec uses in support of Obama is also often used to vote for a somewhat pro-life Republican: "At least he will reduce the number of abortions. Each life saved is the victory."
If Obama will reduce abortions through economic stability and McCain will reduce it by sending it back to the states, who will reduce it more and therefore who is the pro-life candidate? I am not arguing this way, but the logic follows.
It seems Kmiec has given up on the possibility of ending abortion in either party. And since both parties will only reduce abortions, take your pick.
You may disagree with him, but that reasoning does not seem to deserve the outright condemnation found in this thread and many other places. Perhaps a real grappling with the reality we are dealing with rather than a silly "Republicans, good; Democrats, evil" mentality is called for.
Personally, I think he is wrong in supporting Obama especially because the House and Senate will most likely go Democratic. The last thing we want is to give the Democrats the control of all branches. Also, Obama seems to set his own rhetoric in opposition to Kmiecs explicit desires.
The Democrats are committed to liberal judges who will provide unwaivering support for the legality of abortion as a fundamental right. Republicans will at least put decent judges on the bench who will not only overturn that horrid decision of Roe v. Wade, but might just come up with a decision that the right to life is a fundamental human right.
The Democrats are committed to liberal judges who will provide unwaivering support for the legality of abortion as a fundamental right. Republicans will at least put decent judges on the bench who will not only overturn that horrid decision of Roe v. Wade, but might just come up with a decision that the right to life is a fundamental human right.
Actually, aren't Republicans poised to lose even more seats in Congress? If so, McCain would not able to appoint pro-life judges because as much as people chatter on about it not being a litmus test, it is.
a silly "Republicans, good; Democrats, evil" mentality is called for.
Actually, it's Republicans, disappearing-but-vestigial remains of belief in objective right and wrong; Democrats, dictatorship of relativism.
Lest we forget our own history.
Assenting to Roe v. Wade:
Justice Appointed by
Brennan- Eisenhower- Republican
Stewart- Eisenhower- Republican
Burger- Nixon- Republican
Blackmun-Nixon- Republican
Powell- Nixon- Republican
Douglas- FDR- Democrat
Marshall-Johnson- Democrat
Dissenting to Roe v. Wade
Rehnquist- Nixon- Republican
White- Kennedy- Democrat
When Kmiec says it is too Orwellian for him to support the party whose nominees supported Roe v. Wade, why do we get so bent out of shape? It seems odd that even a Democrat dissented to that horrible legislative act.
Kmiec says he thinks there are more fruitful ways to fight Roe v. Wade than waiting and hoping for supreme court nominees who may or may not come through for us. Disagree, fine; but condemn or call traitor, uncalled for.
Lest we forget the past several weeks.
Obama/Biden are hellbent on serving the left.
McCain/Palin are vowing to put pro-life, pro-natural law judges on the court.
At the extreme very least we will see BETTER judges from McCain/Palin.
Don't make this complicated. I like simple.
Do I have to point to the childishness of your anonymous comment?
You may like simple, but life is not simple.
"Party loyalty is a dead end. It's a lethal form of laziness. Issues matter. Character matters. Acting on principle matters. The sound bite slogan do not matter. The belong to a vocabulary of the herd, and human beings deserve better. Real freedom demands an ability to think, and a great deal of modern life seems deliberately designed to discourage that." Chaput, Render unto Caesar.
If you like it simple. Go back to grammar school and see how simple it is to diagram a sentence. That is a cowardly response, both in substance and delivery (anonymous).
Obama supports Abortion=Death of millions.
McCain does not support abortion.
simple. even my 5 year old knows this, no offense.
"Kmiec says he thinks there are more fruitful ways to fight Roe v. Wade than waiting and hoping for supreme court nominees who may or may not come through for us."
Some people think they can fool themselves into justifing voting for a pro-abort.
Your 5 year old, like mine, probably knows the difference between talk without action and action, between what Our Lord calls lukewarm vs. hot or cold.
I have no defense for Obama. I have none for McCain either. One is cold, the other is lukewarm.
McCain has a record of speaking pro-life and voting pro-life when his back is in the corner (shown by Santorum). Remember when he was running against Bush, who argued he was pro-life?
Living in Phoenix, and recently becoming a precinct committeeman for McCain's home legislative district 11, I have seen a little of the grassroots work McCain is encouraging. It is not pro-life. Some of his closest advisers were public supporters of our governor who is a pro-abort Democrat. The people he is working hard to get out of office are the most pro-life people I have met in the party. How is this simple? How is that supportive of the pro-life cause?
Like life, this election is not simple.
35 years of Republican talk and little has been done to overturn Roe v. Wade. Talk is cheap.
No offense taken in your response. No offense intended in mine. As Christians, I presume you are one, we can argue charitably. I ask your forgiveness for the lack of charity in my previous response.
Bill,
Wouldn't you rather vote for lukewarm rather than burning hot?
At least lukewarm has a chance (I would argue, a really good chance) at getting pro-life judges on the court. He picked a great pro-life running mate.
I was holding my nose and voting McCain before the Palin pick. But I think it is a huge step in the RIGHT direction.....and Sen. Brownback and others are getting through to him on ESC babies being murdered.
Bill, maybe we should agree to disagree but I am hopeful McCain/Palin will deliver. God is certainly in charge and has known from all time who will win. God bless you.
I hope all the silly fellows who say they can not support Obama (I never met an abortion I didn't like) or McCain stay home so that the rest of us might do our civic duty such as it is.
Anonymous (I hope you are the same one I have spoken to previously, but oh well. Why do you choose to hide your name? Honestly, isn't that a bit cowardly? Why not put your name next to what you really think?),
I do not wish to vote for someone who is lukewarm, i.e. someone who lies some of the time behind your back. At least the Democrats lie openly.
To vote for the lukewarm will not change them, it encourages them in their lukewarmness. Why would they have to deliver, if they only have to speak like they are pro-life to get our vote?
I do not see a good chance at getting a good supreme court justice out of McCain. If you follow what principles matter most to him, i.e. where he puts his money and mouth, it is not on principle-based pro-life decisions.
My main point is we have a choice between someone who is lukewarm and completely cold. It is not a simple choice.
Too often there are those who try to make it simple and do a disservice to the reason of Americans. Many Americans want it simple and are wishing against reality. They turn a blind eye against things they don't like. I pray it is not an intentional blindness, that would make it vincible ignorance and they would be culpable for any evil actions.
Can you continue to maintain this is simple?
Anonymous (I hope you are the same one I have spoken to previously, but oh well. Why do you choose to hide your name? Honestly, isn't that a bit cowardly? Why not put your name next to what you really think?),
People have many reasons for not using their identity, many of them having nothing to do with cowardice. IOW, unless someone is a blatant trolling brickbat-hurler, let's keep the pin in the cowardice grenade.
The battle now is about who are the authentic teachers of the Catholic faith and morals. Politicians and Professors want to claim taht role. The truth is that only the bishops in communion with the Pope, as successors to the apostles, are the sole authentic teachers in matters of faith and morals. Those who may find an obstacle to assent may seek to question privately, but they ought not dare they try to persuade other Catholics to follow them.
God will judge us on how we heed Him through the successors of those to who he said, "Who hears you hears me." If we heed the wolves in sheeps clothing, we are doomed.
I am very hopeful. Period. I see God's hand in the McCain/Palin campaign.
I know I join the majority of U.S. citizens and I am extremely hopeful they will win and do much, much better than the Obama/Biden ticket.
This is beyond clear to me and many others whos opinons I respect.
johnny b
previous anonymous not on purpose.
i aint' scared ;)
Bill Haley:
Your belief that Obama will "economically" reduce abortions is absurd.
First, Obama is rabidly pro abortion. He even supports infanticide in order to prevent a "slippery slope" against any over turn of Roe v. Wade.
Second, Obama's "economics" plan will NOT reduce abortion. Indeed, his plan will increase taxes on businessses, which will, in turn, retard job growth. That's a recipe for poverty.
McCain is not a perfect pro life candidate, but he has a much stronger pro life voting record than the other candidate.
Someone's five year old demonstrates more clarity in thought than your convoluted and dishonest rationalization.
The names Benedict Arnold and Quisling have been thrown about handily. I might also add the name, "Judas", to the list.
If this country votes for a president who has a record of being-not only rabidly pro-abortion--but also is willing to see newborn infants die (infanticide) to make sure , as he says, the right to abortion does not become too complicated--the the Rev. Wright is right::America deserves to be damned.
To be clear,
I have not said I am supporting Obama. I have not said Kmiec is right to support him. I am saying that the two parties are hardly different in their approach to life issues: the Republicans will reduce abortions at best, the Democrats will not.
It is not my belief that Obama will end abortions by the economy. Those are the facts that Kmiec has put forward. While it is true that a more just (not Republican-style) economy will reduce abortions, that does not, in my mind, justify supporting Obama. It is the argument of an intelligent man who should not be dismissed out of hand as evil or malignant simply because you do not understand his position.
I am trying to understand Kmiec's position, which while based upon a proportionalistic approach, does not seem worthy of the demonizing I have seen elsewhere as well as here.
One of the biggest arguments against Obama I see is the fact that he has a Catholic who is not in good standing with the Church, who would and should be denied Holy Communion. Kmiec overlooks that.
The childish name calling that is present here, Arnold and Judas (as Quisling was not name calling, but a justifiable example), does not suit a Catholic culture.
Johnny B.,
I appreciate your honesty and hope. I believe your hope is misplaced as it should, as it seems from your responses, be primarily in the Lord. The Caesars of today seem as bad as those of yesteryear.
As a fellow Christian, I ask for your prayers and promise the same to you.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!
While Mr. Kmiec may be able to convince himself that it is okay to vote for Obama I feel he is entering dangerous waters in his public advocacy of why it is not only okay for Catholics to vote Obama it is necessary if you are truly pro-life. Further his most recent defense of Obama's vote against the abortion-infanticide bill while in IL senate calls into question his objectivity and/or credibility. "Kmiec says he would have voted for the Illinois bill to protect born-alive infants had he been in the legislature, but he does not fault Obama for voting against it."
It really is pretty simple. The Democratic Party, as a party, supports an intrinsic evil, the Republican Party does not. I am getting tired of reading a bunch of sophistry and apologias for voting for the Abortion Party aka Democratic Party. If Pius XI were around today he would condemn the Democratic Party just like he did the Nazis and Fascists for their support of intrinsic evils of all kinds. Tom
I am getting tired of reading a bunch of sophistry and apologias for voting for the Abortion Party aka Democratic Party.
I would have to agree Tom. One gets a sense that this is what it must have been like in England during the schism of Henry VIII for the loyal Papists who no doubt had to listen to similar linguistic contortionisms from those loyal to Henry.
For me, I look at the kind of people who support Obama. Not to make sweeping generalities, but just look at the way those on the left became absolutely rabid when McCain announced Palin. They HATE her because she is pro-life, believes in Jesus, etc. I know that people on the right are not innocent from attacking the left, but, to my knowledge, conservatives aren't screaming obscenities or foaming at the mouth over Obama. Those on the left stand for things that I believe are not in line with the will of God. Gay pride, faith in government, redefining family, abortion rights, feminism...They have turned their politics into their religion. I wish that Palin was on the top of the ticket.
N:
The hatred that the left holds for Sarah Palin is the same hatred they hold for middle class America. Every insult, every calumny, every degradation hurled at her is hurled at ordinary Americans.
We are not a classless society any longer. The Intelligentsia of the United States is established as the self appointed elites of this nation and this election has revealed their transparent arrogance and disdain for their "inferiors".
But why should we be astonished? They first threw the unborn, the elderly, and the handicapped under the bus. Naturally, we lesser mortals are next.
" Any Voter Guide even hinting at a Catholic duty as a matter of faith and morals to vote against Senator Obama is seriously in error"
This is a veiled threat to the Church. I heard Kmiec on the Catholic Channel radio last spring discussing denial of Communion, justifying his support of Obama and trying to convince listeners that they could vote for him despite his pro abortion record. Mr. Kmiec also went on to warn the audience that there was even more at stake. He said there were anti Catholic groups who wanted to see the Church loose its tax exempt status and were looking for a court case
to do so...the Church could be prosecuted for advising or even indicating to its members that they should vote for a particular candidate or party. I was so angry at his "subtle " threat, that I called in to point out that Obama would appoint the very type of liberal judge to the federal courts that would agree with these groups. After reading this quote from his book,I am even more convinced that Kmiec wants more than sympathy because he was denied Communion. He is also delivering a message to Church leaders ..Be very careful what you say about Obama because it will (literally) cost you.
Commenting by HaloScan
