|
Published: June 11, 2009
Abortion on demand, legalized drugs and same-sex marriage
Political party in Mexico airs pro-abortion campaign ads, says Church should keep its nose out of politics
With national elections for Mexico’s 500-member federal Chamber of Deputies less than a month away, a small left-wing political party has begun airing television ads in Tijuana and elsewhere in Baja California emphasizing one of its major campaign planks – legalized abortion.
 Mexicans will go to the polls on July 5 to elect members to three-year terms in the Chamber of Deputies, which is similar to the U.S. House of Representatives. Under Mexican election law, 300 of the deputies are elected based on receiving the most votes in their districts, but another 200 are apportioned to the various political parties based on the percentage of the vote the party receives in an election.
In Baja California, the pro-abortion Social Democratic Party has fielded eight candidates. Its principal campaign ad, being aired on major television stations, features a middle-aged woman who shifts her gaze between swimming spermatozoa on her left and a developing ovum on her right. “He obtains his degree,” she says, glancing at the spermatozoa. “Her, no,” she says, looking at the developing fertilized egg. “He finds work. She loses hers. He will not be responsible. She will lose her life to a clandestine abortion. Every three days, a woman loses her life to a clandestine abortion. Legalizing abortion does no harm. Let the woman decide!”
In addition to its pro-abortion stance, the Social Democratic Party also favors legalizing same-sex marriages, “women’s equality,” legalizing drugs and keeping the Church out of schools and government. Currently, the Social Democratic Party holds just five seats in the Chamber of Deputies.
In January, the party filed a complaint with Mexico’s Federal Electoral Institute accusing the Catholic Church of illegally engaging in political activity by telling the faithful to take their faith into account when voting.
Party leader Jorge Carlos Díaz Cuervo accused Cuernavaca Bishop Florencio Olvera, Mexico City Archbishop Cardinal Norberto Rivera, Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, and the Mexico City archdiocesan newspaper of singling out the Social Democratic Party by telling Catholics not to vote for any party that supports abortion, same-sex marriage, or any other policies that violates the Church’s moral teachings.
The Church, however, says it has never identified any specific political party but has instead repeatedly told Catholics via bishops across Mexico not to vote for parties that promote policies in conflict with the Church’s moral teachings, specifically with regard to the defense of life and the family.
So far, Mexico’s bishops have ignored the Social Democratic Party’s threats and continue to defend the Church’s right to convey moral guidance to the faithful before voting.
For example, outside the archdiocesan chancery in Tijuana hangs a large banner reading, “In Mexico, we defend life!”
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:04 AM By hehe
Ah, nothing like the good old patriarchy - I am talking about putting women's equality in the quotes. Not content that within the church hierarchy the women are inferior, the church wants to spread its message of denial of equality to its congregants under the guise of "Jesus said it."
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:51 AM By ted
They've been watching our news, it appears. The differences between these people and our Democratic Party are size, language, and location.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:44 AM By KB
European Voice
By Judith Crosbie
11.06.2009 / 05:00 CET
In demanding that guarantees be attached to the Lisbon treaty, the Irish government is exhibiting an unhealthy deference to the Catholic church.
The leaders of the European Union's national governments will next week (18-19 June) agree to requests from Ireland to ‘clarify' the much-argued-over Lisbon treaty. The ‘clarifications' that the European Council will issue are meant to encourage voters in Ireland to back the treaty in a second referendum in the autumn. The demands include a declaration on workers' rights as well as legal guarantees of Ireland's freedom to decide on military neutrality, taxation and ethical issues.
The most innocuous of these guarantees would appear to be the ethical one. EU officials are used to Irish governments demanding assurances that the Union will not try to impose abortion or other perceived evils on its people. Ireland secured a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, even before it was put to the people in a referendum, saying that it would not affect the Irish constitution's ban on abortion. This time around, the protocol will be broader, taking in not only abortion, but potentially also stem-cell research, gay marriage and the role of religion in education. Few at an EU level have questioned Ireland's insistence on retaining control over these issues. Indeed, the assurances are considered almost meaningless since they restate the obvious: that the EU has no competence in these areas.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:08 AM By DarkKnight
I wonder how good Kmiec's Spanish might be. Perhaps he can come to the aid of another Democratic party! After all, they both share the same goals and programs.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:35 AM By JLS
Maybe the Social Democratic Party is receiving some funds from drug cartels.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:53 AM By Abeca Christian
What's wrong with this guy, why is he so evil! Must be money hungry! Just think of how much money the abortion industry will get in Mexico. They want money! Who cares about values and family life, when they can just kill children and get money out of it. The exploitation of women has been going on for a very long time and you'll see it more prominent in poorer countries as well.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:33 AM By Maria
Dear hehe,
I don't know about your "patriarch", but mine encourages women to live as equals in human dignity, intellectual attainment, spiritual discipline and social responsibility. The objectivization that is promoted by what is the current attitude towards women is not "equality". It is truly "patronizing" and demeaning in every possible way. Educate yourself and open your eyes. This society is not liberating. You've been had.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:58 AM By JLS
hehe, your dead wrong about women being inferior in Church hierarchy. If by that you mean that women are not allowed to be men in the Church, that is real gripe, right? Equality for women in its ultimate meaning is exemplified by Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, who equals the best of creation. Why don't you strive to be like Her? We are apprised of Her virtues so that women can be equal to women. Why would you want to measure up to something other than the essense of equality for women? You should try to equal the virtues of Blessed Mary; it is not something attainable, but it is indeed something to seek for yourself and for other women. Are you equal to the task of being a true woman?
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:01 AM By Pax Christi
Nice to see our Catholic shepherds in Mexico try to put up a fence on the path that was made wide and easy through compassion and choice but leads to destruction.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:01 PM By atty79
I saw the topic of this article, and thought, how slimy to put those issues together with gay marriage. What does abortion and legalization of drugs got to do with it? It's as if I were to write an article, entitled, "Murder on demand, war, tyranny, oppression, pedophilia, the church". Get my point?
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:04 PM By lome
To he he he he,
Man and woman each have their own role to play. If you don't believe that, then yes! Men should be rearing babies with their own milk by hormone injection or gene manipulation ect.Let the women support their husband, fight wars and abandon giving birth.
Man and woman supplement one another. It is a perfect plan of the creator for maximum survival of the species.
There is no shame in giving birth, or demeaning status in raising children. It is very honorable and pleasing in the eyes
Of God .This is the truth. Destroy the family unit and you
Destroy a nation.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:29 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: You do not say, So widespread is the political infiltration of drug cartels that there is a probability, however low, that the Mexico's Social Democratic Party is receiving funds from drug cartels. No, instead, in a polemical context in which you KNOW that Mexico's Social Democratic Party is involved in promoting abortocratic politics, you -- by contrast incongrously -- adduce no evidence whatsoever to back up your SINGLING OUT Mexico's Social Democratic Party as (purportedly) receiving "some funds from drug cartels." This gambit is what I mean, JLS, by IMPROVISING news. See CCD June 10: 8:21 PM: "News improvised by bloggers without warrant; news improvised by bloggers who engage in rash judgment...is the bane of the blogosphere." See Tomatsu
Shibutani, _Improvising News: A Sociological Study of Rumor_ (1966).
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:34 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to DarkKnight: Even in Plato's cave one should be able to read the political shadow-dancing on the wall more clearly than that! You write: "Perhaps [Douglas Kmiec] can come to the aid of another Democratic Party." DarkKnight, is Mexico's _Partido Socialdemocrata_ another Democratic party? In what sense? In the North American sense? ~ For that matter, is the PSD another social-democratic-workers' party of the center-left in the European sense? In point of fact, the PSD's claim -- as a small, newly-minted party -- is to be a New Left party, not a left-center party, let alone a left-center workers' party in the classical Social-Democratic sense. ~ If abortion is the interiorization of the violence of bourgeois society by young couples (alas, against themselves and their preborn), then the PSD cannot convincingly claim to be a party IN OPPOSITION to bourgeois culture. ~ As for Professor Douglas Kmiec, he is a North American Republican who regrets his own Party's refusal to recognize the role of the Declaration of Independence as affording "guidance" to the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of the equal right to life of preborn infants. By th same token, Kmiec regrets his (apparent) failure to convince President Obama of the same thing. But DarkKnight, there is no elective affinity between Douglas Kmiec's politics and the politics of a marginal Mexican party of the New Left. It is clear to me from his writings (with which I disagree on several points) that Doug Kmiec no less regrets the appearance of a Mexican _Partido Abortocrata_ than I do.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:05 PM By WOODY GUIDRY
Some of your intrepid commentators sound as if their study of religion came from public restroom graffiti. Serious discussion of inequality of female church roles is outdated only by cave men (cavehuman?) graffiti. Get a job.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 12:12 AM By JLS
Maguire, once again, I am not writing as a lawyer; I'm pointing out an angle. It's called insight and analysis based on logical extention and knowledge of human nature. If some lawyer or investigative journalist wanted to look into an idea, then that is their profession, not mine. But in this sort of case, there is not only a lot of money to be earned that way, but also a lot of lead flying too. It's a jab at corruption. Abortion is corruption in its extreme, and so there is no reason to imagine that such a connection between drug cartels and abortion politicians doesn't or couldn't exist. I didn't hit a nerve, did I?
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 12:16 AM By JLS
atty79, the answer to your question is corruption of the soul. Abortion, homosexualism, drug cartels ... these are some of the more heinous corruptions of humanity. It is likely that when one is corrupt in one way, then one is corrupt in other ways. If you are an attorney, then you do your thing and let others publish the ideas for you to work with.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 12:19 AM By JLS
lome, absolutely!!! God reveals to us in Genesis that woman will be saved by the pains of childbirth. And I'm supposing that those pains are not limited to the physical pain during delivery. Blessed Mary Ever Virgin suffered the pains unto death of her child hanging on the Cross. I believe that's part of it.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 12:22 AM By JLS
"As for Professor Douglas Kmiec, he is a North American Republican who regrets his own Party's refusal to recognize the role of the Declaration of Independence ... " (Maguire): Let me quote a movie line, "That's good; that's real good". At least Kmiec regrets something, as he doesn't seem to regret trying to lord it over a hundred bishops and the Pope. But just imagine if he had gotten away with it.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 12:28 AM By JLS
It's not the argument of the caveman, but the eloquence that is worth the read. Brings back fond memories. He never claims, as far as I can tell, to be human, but he does claim to be Catholic and I believe his claim. If he weren't, then I don't think he could get away with his language style.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 9:43 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS, in quoting it, you clipped my post too early. What I wrote was that "[Douglas Kmiec] is a North American Republican who regrets his own Party's refusal to recognize the role of the Declaration of Independence AS AFFORDING 'GUIDANCE' [emphasis mine] to the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of the equal right to life of preborn infants." In this light, the guidance that Professor Kmiec might proffer Mexico's PSD -- Mexico's Partido Abortocrata, as I think it can fairly be styled -- would certainly NOT run contrary to the sort of advice that Professor Kmiec has already proffered both North American political parties -- on the same point: These two parties have both neglected the Organic Law of the United States as a point of reference in the struggle that has followed the Supreme Court's abortocratic decision to treat certain human life as legally protected and certain other human life as bare life -- life stripped of legal protection.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM By Abeca Christian
hehe speak for your self, I am a women and understand truly that women are being exploited in the abortion industry so how can you stand for that. Just think of how many young girls are being murdered at the hands of abortionists, many! Even our little boys too, that potentially can grow up to be gentlemen. The pro-choice movement is all a lie! How can someone stand up and say that it is my body and my choice when that little human life growing inside the uterus is not part of one's body! It is another human life! If women don't want to make that decision to end a life, than close your legs !
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:02 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Maguire,
Re.: "Kmiec regrets his (apparent) failure to convince President Obama of the same thing", where oh where did you get that? Name, date, and source requred!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:12 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Cuervo and SDP must think they are north of the border, and that they can muscle their Bishops into complacency with their agenda. They will regret the day they tangled with real Bishops, the majority of the Bishops of Mexico!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 9:06 PM By JLS
Bravo, Abeca Christian !!! The womb belongs to the baby, not the mother; she is only the guardian of the womb.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:14 PM By Abeca Christian
Thank you JLS that took a lot out of me.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:04 PM By JLS
Whatever, Abecca Christian, no doubt the Holy Spirit will hover over you and refill you more than you imagine possible. BTW, more on this thread to link it to an additional part of the "pan-topic" of abortion, bad drugs, faux marriage: immigration. Human embryos fall into two of these four categories, abortion and immigration. Unborn babies immigrate across a border and into a new nation for them. Whereas they were not legal residents of the United States, they become legal ... or at least many of them. Those who are not deemed to be legal immigrants are not simply turned back at the border (of the womb) but butchered just over the line on either side, and this massacre goes on without any legal proceedings, without due justice, without any recourse to law in each and every case. What if the Second Coming of Christ were to take place on January 23 during the annual March for Life, and suddenly 50 Million unborn baby souls in their glorified bodies join the March?
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:28 PM By John F. Maguire
In response to Kenneth M. Fisher: That regret -- namely, Professor Kmiec's regret that he failed to convince Barack Obama of the pertinence of "natural law" considerations in the crucial context of the right to life of preborn infants -- can be fairly infered from the specific face-to-face conversation that Professor Kmiec had with Barack Obama on the matter of the right of preborn considered from the point of view of "natural law" jurisprudence. (This conversation has already been reported on this site.) I'm here putting quotes around the term *natural law* not to distance myself from this tradition of jurisprudence -- to the contrary -- but rather to stress the fact that Professor Kmiec used this term, and just this term, in the course of his conversation with Barack Obama on the right to life. ~ No, Professor Kmiec is not happy that he and Obama failed to concur on the preeminently important matter of the equal right of infants -- born and inborn alike -- to the good that is human life itself.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:35 PM By Chelsea
The womb belongs to God. The mother is to care for it. The baby resides in it.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:28 PM By RR
If I didn't read the caption below this picture on this article, I would have sworn this Jorge Carlos Diaz Cuervo was Al Gore.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:14 PM By JLS
Alright, Chelsea, I concede. What you say makes perfect sense, and there can be no reasonable rebuttal.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:10 PM By Anne T.
What a poor lost soul. Let us pray for him.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:44 AM By John F. Maguire
Not all typos are worth correcting; still, I did intend, in my last post, to refer to "the equal right of infants -- born and UNBORN alike -- to the good that is human life itself."
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 10:46 AM By John F. Maguire
"It's my womb and I can do what I want with it." These thoughtless words are still, even today, commonly spoken. ~ Chelsea, I second your rejection of this commonplace but hyper-individualistic protestation. You write: "The womb belongs to God. The mother is to care for it. The baby resides in it." ~ The womb belongs to God because the womb always already belongs to the woman whose womb it it is. It is because this woman is a creature of God; it is because this woman, as a person, comes from the hand of God, that her womb belongs to God. We even pray, in laudation of the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and in laudation of this womb's fruit: "...and blessed is the fruit of THY womb, Jesus" (emphasis mine) ~ Next you write:
"The woman is to care for [her womb]." Yes, but this same woman's relationship to her womb -- whether she realizes it or not -- is more than a relationship of caring. The woman's womb, and just this womb, is her OWNMOST womb. This ownmostness, if you will, is the reality that undergirds a woman's caring for her womb. ~ "The baby resides in [her womb]." True, but the primary relationship between the infant in the womb and her mother -- as, Chelsea, you have already suggested -- is consortial rather than (simply) residential. Indeed, the infant in the womb is consortially related to her mother and her father alike, even when her mother or her father neglects -- or both neglect -- to acknowledge this consortium -- this togetherness.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 3:13 PM By JLS
The womb may belong to the woman in one sense, but it belongs to the baby in a greater sense, since the woman can live without the womb, but the baby can't. And it belongs to God more than anything because He created it.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:33 PM By Chelsea
Thank you John. As usual, you turn a few words, a few loaves, a few fish into many. Those with big appetites will surely get their fill.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 12:03 AM By Abeca Christian
Chelsea don't you think that John F. Maguire went into too much detail and sounded more like a dictionary trying to give definitions to everything you posted. What may appear to be too much brain may not always mean too much brain. Chelsea your post was simple and truthful, we don't need anyone to explain it. Oh by way I got bloody dizzy when I read John F. Maguire post.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 9:28 AM By JLS
Maguire's posts are like fine wine, in that one only needs a little bit to savor the essense. I, however, have graduated to the better stuff ... beer.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 10:43 AM By Anne T.
Love your posts, Chelsea!
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 2:33 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Abeca: Sorry the distinction between the preborn infant as a "resident" in the womb and the preborn infant as a co-constituting member of the family "consortium" (father, mother, and embryonic child) makes you dizzy. ~ What makes me dizzy is mixing beer with wine. cc: JLS.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 2:57 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS I care to differ, fine wine is actually better. We can't compare his posts to fine wine. I like fine wine.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 5:18 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
John Maguire,
Again I ask for time and date and actual statements that imply what you are as far as I am concerned conjecturing concerning Kmiec. I read his statement to the Seminarians on why he originally went to see Obama at a Ministers meeting. The fact that an intelligent man could be swayed by so empty statements by Obama is frightening at minimum.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 10:29 PM By JLS
Abeca, the problem with fine wine, for me, is that I have no restraint in drinking it until it is gone no matter how much of it there is. Way back at the dawn of civilization, some of my fellow students (and we'd been at the student occupation for awhile) and I all drove out to wine country and spent the entire day and evening sampling the best we could talk them out of. Included in our persuasive group was one young man who had spent his youthful summers in Switzerland with his various relatives who owned breweries and wineries and who could speak fluent high class french and could speak it as few poets trying to charm people could speak it, and two others who were grad students in the world's foremost winemaking and enology school, and the rest of us ... the counter folks ended up often bringing out the stuff they weren't supposed to from the back of the cellars. Even when toasted some of that vino displayed some of the near ambrosia qualities one reads about in classic literature. Now oddly I've discovered even finer and more intoxicating aromas in natural habitat during certain times of the year and with certain weather conditions. Beer on the other hand keeps me level headed, well so it seems anyway, because I can keep myself from drinking much of it ... St Padre Pio, I read, would habitually sip beer throughout the day; I sip it over the course of a few hours in the evening.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:23 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Kenneth M. Fisher (I): I think "conjecture" is to mild a characterization of my claim that it is a fair inference that Douglas Kmiec "regrets his (apparent) failure to convince President Obama" to "recognize the role of the Declaration of Independence as affording 'guidance' to the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of the equal right to life of preborn infants" (June 11: 3:34 PM). At issue, then, is the Declaration's articulation of the equal right of one and all since, in accord with the natural law, all men indeed are created equal. ~ Mr. Fisher, on November 11, 2008, at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo (quoting now from this website's account of that event published on November 18, 2008), "Kmiec described how [upon attending a forum of Chicago religious leaders -- JM] he had challenged Obama about his statement that the Senator wouldn't want his daughter to be 'punished with a baby.' Kmiec recounted: 'So I said to him: "What in the world are you thinking?" [He asked me] "...how many children do you have?' I said "five." He said, "when your wife first told you she was with child, how did you feel?" I said "great." Then he said: "There are some people who dont' have...[much], who don't have a husband, who are...just barely knowing where they're going to eat...and the announcement to them of a child coming is...[not great]." ~ Now, given this account, I think it is a fair inference that Doug Kmiec REGRETS that his attempt to "challenge" Obama's evident blindness to the equal status of all preborn infants as living human bodies -- not to say the equal status of all men as "created equal" per the Organic Law of the United States -- should have fallen on deaf ears.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:53 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Kenneth Fisher (II): The CCD report (November 18, 2008) from which I quoted at (I) [above] continues:
"Kmiec described another exchange he had with Obama: 'I think Obama ought to accept...[the pro-life argument from Natural Law Theory]. I told him as much. And his reply is to say: "I see my duty as wider than just your faith tradition. I respect your views, but I also have to respect theirs [those who dont' believe abortion is wrong]." And so he finds himself in this far left secularist position...to respect the choice of the mother.'" Again, on the basis of this account, it is, I submit, a fair inference that Douglas Kmiec regrets Barack Obama's obtuse reduction of the natural law, the first principle of which (Kmiec knows) is to do good and avoid evil, to but a particular tradition -- to but a particular "faith tradition" -- relative to which Barack Obama congratulates himself that he represents a "wider" duty. Kmiec, as a natural law theorist, realizes -- as how could he not? -- how abjectly confused his friend Obama has become on this matter. Can there really be such a thing as a "wider duty" than the primary duty of the natural law, which law obliges us, in its first instance, to do good and avoid evil? A wider duty than doing good and avoiding evil? ~ No, Douglas Kmiec deeply regrets Obama's confusion. That's more than a conjecture on my part. That's a fair inference from the two conversations with Barack Obama that Doug Kmiec reports.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:15 PM By JLS
"Organic Law of the United States": I'm guessing it came from one of the early drafts that has the famous, "We hold these organic truths to be self evident".
|
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:06 PM By John F. Maguire
Lame humor aside, JLS, the Organic Law of the United States -- Law honored as a part of the expectable knowledge of this nation's citizenry -- includes the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:01 PM By JLS
A little humor is better than no humor. By the way, if you believe Kmiec is really concerned with following the Church, then we ought to all pray that he do so.
|
Posted Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:42 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Maguire,
Your inference would be correct if Kmiec had since seen the light after it became clear that Obama favored the killing of the already born, appointed the most radical pro-abortion administration this poor Nation has ever suffered, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
|
Posted Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:27 AM By John F. Maguire
No, Mr. Fisher, my claim that Mr. Kmiec regrets President Obama's obtuseness regarding both the natural law and the Organic Law of the United States is a claim I proffered quite independently of what further conclusions you (and I) would have Professor Kmiec draw in light of this regret. ~ Mr. Fisher, you had asked me for the documentary basis for my reading of Doug Kmiec's position on this matter -- and at (I) and (II) [above] I provided it.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|