|
Published: November 18, 2008
“Obama and the bishops are talking the same platform”
Kmiec speech at St. John’s Seminary attracts pro-life protesters
About 50 pro-life protesters held signs and conducted a candlelight prayer vigil on the sidewalk outside the gates of St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo a week ago today as Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, a prominent Republican and Catholic who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama during the presidential campaign, spoke inside.
A press release from one of the pro-life organizations represented at the sidewalk protest stated: “Obama is the most radical pro-abortion member of the Senate and will be the most radical pro-abortion president… It was wrong for Kmiec, a supposedly pro-life Catholic, to support him. It was wrong for Cardinal Mahony to pal around with Kmiec and invite (or permit his underlings to invite) Kmiec to a Catholic seminary to spread his moral sophistry and betrayal of Catholic teaching.”
 Kmiec was introduced to the audience of about 300 by Fr. Richard Benson, C.M., academic dean of St. John’s. Professor Kmiec elicited laughter by mentioning the reaction of people in other parts of the country to the name of his home parish: Our Lady of Malibu. He also established his “Catholic credentials” by mentioning his past work as a professor and dean at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. After a few more jokes, Kmiec noted, “American Catholics have chosen the popular vote winner for the last 10 presidential elections.” This means, Kmiec explained, that “we are not in anybody’s pocket” and that “we have given real meaning to [Pope] John Paul’s wonderful [teaching] where he said that Catholicism is not an ideology; it transcends political parties.”
Later in the talk, Kmiec described meeting Obama at a forum for “faith leaders in Chicago.” Kmiec described how 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 that she was with child, how did you feel?’ I said ‘great.’ Then he said: ‘There are some people who don’t 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].’”
Kmiec described another exchange at the same meeting in which Franklin Graham (son of famed Protestant evangelist Billy Graham) asked Obama whether or not the senator believed that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Obama paused, said Kmiec, and responded: “No, I believe He’s my way.” Graham shook his head and asked again, “Is He the Way?” After another pause, Obama mentioned that the person who had been a “great Christian witness” in his life was his mother, and she never practiced [traditional Christianity]. Yet, he believed, God would find a way for her to be saved. In response to that exchange, Kmiec said, “I never doubted the senator’s faith again.”
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 don’t believe abortion is wrong].’ And so he finds himself in this far left secularist position… to respect the choice of the mother.”
Kmiec said attempts by past Republican presidents to appoint justices friendlier to the pro-life cause to the Supreme Court have met with failure. He mentioned justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter -- all appointed by Republican presidents and who voted to affirm Roe vs. Wade. He did not mention justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts. Kmiec’s point was that using legal means to advance the pro-life cause was not succeeding, so our time and attention would be better spent on cultural and economic means of reducing abortion.
The biggest division among the bishops, said Kmiec, was “over the question of whether the protection of human life must come only from cultural and economic resources or only from legal approaches.” And, he continued, “Cardinal George, the president of the Bishops’ Conference said, ‘Let’s do both.’” Kmiec said that “except for the abortion issue, Obama and the bishops are talking the same platform.”
After a brief break, Kmiec took three questions from the audience, one of which mentioned Obama’s support for the Freedom of Choice Act. Kmiec responded, “Most of what I’ve been told by members of Congress is that that bill will never make it out of the House…”
According to a report on the lecture from Catholic News Agency, a priest in the audience proposed a hypothetical situation in which Kmiec has a telephone conversation with Pope Benedict. The priest asked whether Kmiec would ask for further explanation of the letter to the U.S. bishops concerning proportionality in voting decisions. Kmiec responded that, if the pope said, “Doug, you’re wrong,” he would then have to tear out the first 174 pages of his pro-Obama book (Can a Catholic Support Him?) and stand with the magisterium.
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:04 AM By JLS
Kmiec is certifiable, but what type of madness exactly?
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:40 AM By John F. Maguire
In his direct discussion with then-Senator Barack Obama on the question of abortion, Professor Kmiec elicits from Barack Obama responses that are symptomatic of a basic disorientation on Obama's part (yet, as responses, useful in the sense of getting a better picture of how Barack Obama actually thinks about abortion). There appears to be a practical atheism in Obama's thinking (however unconsciously held) when, for example, he refers to the pregnant state as a "punishment". If, however, God is the author of human life, as He is the author of the cosmos, then prenatal life can hardly be construed as a punishment, however difficult the circumstances. Again because: God is the author of such life. Professor Kmiec, good lawyer that he is, took advantage of another occasion to draw Barack Obama's attention to the natural-law right of preborn infants to life. This intervention, however, elicited further confusion on the part of Obama. To wit: Obama proceeded to confound Faith, on the one hand, and the natural law, on the other. Whence his reply to Kmiec: "I see my duty as wider than just your faith-tradition." But there is no such thing as a duty wider than right reason; there is no such thing as a duty wider than the natural law, the first principle of which is: Do good and avoid evil. All other features of the natural law derive from this primary principle: Do good and avoid evil. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Barack Obama appears not to know, in fine, what the natural law is--and therefore not to know (exactly) what positive law is. On top of which: Obama appears to confound the Catholic Faith, which he relativizes as one particular "faith-tradition", with the natural law, relative to which law he claims a "wider" duty. A wider duty than the duty to do good and avoid evil? There is no such thing as a duty wider than the primary duty to do good and avoid evil. Douglas Kmiec, as a lawyer, knows that, even if Obama does not.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:22 AM By BJ
'Doug.... you're wrong'.
Tear out the pages and stop being a fool. Pro abortion is to deny Christ and supporting a proponent, whatever his cover story, is to be a part of that denial.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:23 AM By BenB
Kmiec's argument about FOCA is ludicrous. It is like saying "Well, my candidate supports slavery, but it'll never make it out of the House." Why you give a forum to this guy is beyond me. And Mahoney is just as bad.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:32 AM By East Coast Tom
Kmiec described a meeting between Obama and Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, but Jim Brown of OneNewsNow.com says the "Pastor to presidents" has been replaced by the gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson:
A conservative Christian activist says it's a sad omen for the Obama administration and the United States that Barack Obama has been seeking guidance from the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop.
The Times of London reports that the president-elect sought out New Hampshire homosexual bishop Vicki Gene Robinson for advice three times during his presidential campaign. Robinson, whose ordination in the Episcopal Church has caused a deep rift within the Anglican Communion, was reportedly sought out by Obama to discuss what it feels like to be "first."
Robinson notes in their three private conversations, Obama voiced his support for "equal civil rights" for homosexuals and described the election as a "religious experience." Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes Obama's consultations with Robinson show the true tenor of his upcoming administration.
"It looks like Billy Graham has been replaced by a gay bishop. We're moving to, perhaps, our first anti-Christian president; it's beyond post-Christian. Gene Robinson advocates homosexuality as part of the Christian experience," he explains. "Now Bible-believing Christians cannot accept that. Homosexual practice is sinful, as taught by the scriptures. This man [Obama] pretends to be faithful to Christianity, even as he works very hard to undermine it."
LaBarbera suggests Robinson may possibly replace Jeremiah Wright as one of Obama's main spiritual advisers. Wright was Obama's Chicago pastor for 20 years before disassociating with the controversial preacher during the presidential campaign.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:39 AM By Fr. M.P.
So Obama thinks that natural law is only our faith tradition. What is natural *is*, and cannot be changed by perception. It is the perception which is subjective, and can be wrong, where perception may not equal reality. We see the disconnect, for example, with the claim of "sexual orientation." That shows well the relativistic thinking, which is nothing more than the worship of one's self opinion, one's perception. Promoting credentials is so worldly. What credentials did the Apostles and many saints have? None. Credentials don't matter, faith and charity matter. I'll stick to the successors of the Apostles rather than a guy with "credentials."
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:48 AM By Mary Elizabeth
Truth be told, if Obama really cared about the women he's allowing to have abortions, he wouldn't allow them to abort during their time of distress, but offer them help instead. For they may not always be in distress, and at that time, they will miss their child horribly, until the end of their life. It's all about control. You can more easily control a downtrodden woman, than an upbeat confident life-loving mom.
And as for Doug Kmiec, he's lickin' the sweat off the devil's face. What a fool. Won't he be surprised if Christ refuses him water as Satan's salt kicks in.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:54 AM By St. Christopher
This is nuts. Kmiec is simply an apologist for liberal catholics that no longer want to practice the faith, that is, to be actual Catholics. He has clearly given up any battle on abortion by urging others to go along to get along in the social arena (and not use those nasty old courts to try and change things, like the Democrats do). He has become a spokesman for evil, although hiding behind the forced confusion of the Church on the abortion issue and the silly notion of "proportionality" in voting. Yessiree, that Hitler feller is not bad at all, keeps prices down and streets clean, with trains running on time . . . He is a little rough on the Jews, though, but hey, they keep to themselves and, they're Jews anyway, so the greater good is served by following der fuhrer. Almost 50 million souls follow abortion providers, and enablers.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:56 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Doug, you're wrong. And so were you, my fellow Americans, to vote for the most extremely pro-abortion, anti-Catholic values candidate available for the office of the President of the United States.
Obviously, we Americans must now live with the choice of the American people. If we must live in a country that openly legalizes the killing of babies, we must work harder to make that form of murder seem to be as horrible as it truly is.
Our efforts to overturn the law have failed miserably; let us face that. Our efforts to win the hearts and minds of the populace must now begin anew, and those efforts must be greatly intensified. This is a campaign, a war if you will, to save babies.
I can live in a land in which the murder of infants is legal if it seen by every one of my fellow citizens as so horrifying that it is never again perpetrated against a single individual.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:07 AM By Ken M.
St. John's Seminary will no longer be on my list of
charities I support.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:37 AM By RobK
I think we can stop calling Kmiec a prominent Republican.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:24 AM By 4unborn
The number of priests coming out of St. John's Seminary has drastically declined. You can tell a tree by its fruit. St. John's Seminary should be chopped down and burned.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:35 AM By Eileen
Doug Kmiec said that "except for the abortion issue, Obama and the Bishops are talking the same platform." Talk about absurdity! Can you imagine during the holocaust if Eva Braun told the Jews, "Except for the gas chambers, Hitler is talking the same platform." Doug, you "are" wrong. Don't just tear out the first 174 pages, get rid of every copy of your recipe book on cooking up excuses that allow abortion. Your book is incriminating evidence of your support for evil and betrayal of the faith. Until you repent for disobeying God and influencing others to do the same...... The verdict is guilty! The diagnosis is... "Not the Mind of the Church but the Mind of Malibu."
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:29 AM By Papamac
Hussien and the Bishops "ARE TALKING THE SAME PLATFORM" EXCEPT FOR THE ABORTION ISSUE" If Kmiec had said Hussien and the liberal wing of the USCCB are talking the same platform, fine, he would have credability, but to tie ALL Bishops in to his version of the USCCB is dead wrong, like Kmiec we do have certain Bishops that do not have a REAL problem with Abortion or sodomite agenda's that hussien thrives on, Bishop George demonstrated that in his pathetic news conference following the Bishops meeting. MGB
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:41 AM By JimAroo
Professor Kmiec is doing an excellent job...... of lobbying for a position n the Obama administration. So how can I protest to Cardinal Mahony when our local "Catholic" colleges invite pro abortion speakers or award recipients? His very own seminary is giving credence to Professor Kmiec who has given cover to ever dissenting Catholic in the country. This is a scandal.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:41 AM By Life Lady
You cannot have it both ways. It is not attractive to uphold abortion and make it pretty. Abortion is ugly, and at its core is a selfish desire to be free of the "burden" of a child that is unplanned and unwanted. Its okay if they don't want the child, but to kill it because you don't want it, THAT is murder, and anyone who promotes the horror of abortion, without taking into account that "just say no" to sex would fix the problem, they are kidding themselves, and are blind to the scandal and the sinfulness of abortion. Get a grip, its not about the easiest way to do something, its about the right way to do something. Had Christ selected the easy way, we would not have had his Glorious Resurrection. There would have been doubt that He had died, but there is no doubt, and no question. So, abortion is wrong, and those who support the pres-elect are falling into the pit, and looking "nice and glib" all the way down.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:53 AM By Jason 1975
"except for the abortion issue......"
I am sorry but doesn't Kmiec listen to the bishops? There is no other issue that is proportional to abortion. It is an intrinsic evil. They call it an EVIL that is innately so, as it is murder of an innocent person. It cannot be supported or EVEN TOLERATED in anyway. Legal abortion in this country results in 1.2 million murders of babies every year. What other social or economic issue murders 1.2 million people a year? Someone needs to tell Kmiec that just ONE abortion is one too many.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:54 AM By June V
I am sure that the Pope has time for a "doubting Thomas " such as Kmiec. He only believes if the Pope tells him in person. What makes this man think that the Pope would pick him out of all Catholics to personally teach him a truth that most practicing Catholics already know in their hearts.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:19 AM By Jack P
The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:54 AM By DarkKnight
Let's hope he takes that call from Rome soon.
I hope that he has better arguments in the 174 pages of his book than what he's presented here. It's disgusting that an educated man could accept the arguments the professor's put forward to justify his position.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:20 AM By John F. Maguire
In the general course of things, every presidency has its scandals. But President-elect Obama has yet to assure us that he is not going to plunge his presidency into a *scandalon* of biblical proportions. I am referring here to
candidate Barack Obama's flubbing Douglas Kmiec's question concerning the natural law. Barack Obama, in response to Professor Kmiec, denied the universality of the natural law, a universality that derives immediately from its primary principle *Do good and avoid evil*. Whereupon Obama went on to reduce the natural law to [Douglas Kmiec's own particular) "faith tradition". But this double error--relativism and the denial of the universality of the natural law--is an enormity. It constitutes a fundamental break with the American natural-law tradition, as defended, for example, by Martin Luther King. "A just law," wrote Dr. King, "is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law" (Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963).
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:33 AM By Sieber
The shame is that our body of bishops will NOT set forth the duties required to adhere to the Magisterium. Kmiec would NOT have wielded what influence on the vote he may have had. He is, in fact, a symptom of the lack of doctrinal training fostered throughout this Archdiocese and bolstered by the Theology faculty of St. John's. One feminist on the faculty not only undercut the male only priesthood, she overtly taught that Pope Joan was an historical fact. Another, whose degree is from a protestant seminary, teaches that the early church was a muddle, where women presided at Eucharist and there are three great Apostolic traditions, the catholic, the orthodox and the protestant. He , of course, offers his "personal opinion" that there is no reason the Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood. He also trains our permanent deacons. There is not one training session for volunteer teachers which does not contain the statement, "Remember, you cannot unscrew the top of their heads and pour in knowledge." "We're lucky if we have time to teach them to love Jesus." Let's plan our trip to the soup kitchen and make sandwiches. The Master Catechists are so ill informed it is pathetic. Their hand outs are often in contradiction to the references to the Catechism referenced in small letters at the bottom of the page, referred to-but never read. There is no foundation laid for the laity of the last two generations that would lead them to understand the authority of the Magisterium to advise their conscience nor of their obligation to conform their conscience to the magisterium. They would be far more attuned to the NCR. Thank you St. Johns.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:47 PM By CJJ
The marxist has no allegiance, except to the cause. He may call himself a Catholic, a Republican, an attorney, or a priest. To him these titles mean nothing - they have value only insofar as they can be used to recruit others to the cause. And it is the business of the marxist to disassemble anyhow.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:24 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to BenB: You've misread Professor Kmiec's position on FOCA. How a Catholic voter assesses the Congressional chances of FOCA is not irrelevant to the proportionality analysis called for by Cardinal Ratzinger, that is, it is not irrelevant where, effectively, both candidates in the field have refused to recognize preborn infants as persons under the law--Obama because he is pro-FOCA and McCain because he would (ex hypothesi) return the abortion issue to the states where state legislatures would vote on whether preborn infants have a right to life regardless, however, of these infants' always already having the right to life under the common law and in accord with the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, read inclusively.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:30 PM By Damaris Teague
In reply to Mary Elizabeth: The rhetoric you use against Professor Kmiec ("[H]e's lickin' the sweat off the devil's face"; etc.) is as gravely unjust to this outstanding student of the law as that same rhetoric is Gantryesque. The truth be told, what makes the devil sweat is a scene--like the one reported in the article above--in which an accomplished pro-life lawyer (Douglas Kmiec) introduces a fellow lawyer (Barack Obama) to the pro-life case on behalf of preborn infants--and does so in terms of the natural law, the same natural law that Martin Luther King embraced in his 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail. See John F. Maguire, CCD November 18: 11:20 AM above. We can only hope and pray that President-elect Obama heed the contribution Douglas Kmiec has made to his own thinking on this crucial question. In the meantime, we owe Professor Kmiec a debt of gratitude for personally engaging Mr. Obama on an issue that will, in the end, be the real measure of his presidency.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:11 PM By Dan
"Yet, he believed, God would find a way for her to be saved. In response to that exchange, Kmiec said, “I never doubted the senator’s faith again.”
Faith in what???
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:59 PM By Sister Act
In reply to St. Christopher: In dismissing "the silly notion of 'proportionality' in voting", you are, you realize, dismissing not only Professor Kmiec but also Cardinal Ratzinger, who invokes--as something that must needs be present where neither candidate reognizes the right of preborn infants to life yet a vote between the two is in the offing--precisely the presence of proportional reasons for voting for one or the other candidate. In this situation, "the presence of proportional reasons" for motivating one's vote is strictly required. I hardly think this requirement is silly. Indeed, in areas of ethics other than voting ethics, the two concepts of remote material cooperation in evil and the permissibility of such cooperation in the presence of proportional reasons, are two concepts that have a long history in Catholic moral theology. See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Cardinal McCarrick, 2004, published on the Internet at Priest for Life.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:14 PM By JPeterman
Why is this phoney Kmiec even given attention and why if he's in a position of power at a "Catholic" institution can't he be censured or thrown out of his job?
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:23 PM By JLS
Kmiec is no doubt the greatest law student of all time, D. Teague, but his problem is his defiance of faith, his utter failure to learn it, and the treasonous cottling of his evil that has moved him up in the lay ranks of the Church's academic system.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:48 PM By Harry
No Damaris Teague, we owe Professor Kmiec nothing. The devil owes him a lot, though, for disseminating the idea among Catholics that one can be Catholic and vote for a rabidly pro abortion and anti- religion president. The devil must be grinning at how far Kmiec and his ilk have led otherwise faithful Catholics away from the clear, unambiguous teaching of their Church on this question. The devil can also thank our liberal bishops at the USCCB for watering down the document the USCCB produced a few months before the election and making it into a handy tool for the pro-abortionists to use in promoting Obama's candidacy. Kmiec and his fellow "catholics" who found "common ground" with culture of death promoters were so adroitly used by Obama that I blush for those feckless fools.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:36 PM By Dan
"Kmiec said attempts by past Republican presidents to appoint justices friendlier to the pro-life cause to the Supreme Court have met with failure. He mentioned justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter -- all appointed by Republican presidents and who voted to affirm Roe vs. Wade. He did not mention justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts." Such crafty reasoning obfuscates rather than clarifies. Would Kmiec perfer not to have Thomas, Scalia, or Alioto on the bench? Someone should have asked him that. I am glad that Kmiec had his exchanges with Obama, but his subsequent endorsement of the man as the best pro-life option (all things considered) leaves me empty.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:39 PM By Verkola
In reply to Eileen: (1) I do truly enjoy my occasional visits to Malibu, yet can't fathom what you mean by the Mind of Malibu; nor yet what you intend to mean by the Mind of Malibu in reference to the fact that Professor Kmiec teaches Constitutional law at Malibu's University of Pepperdine School of Law. (2) Does the Mind of Malibu have something to do with your playing the role of juror ("The verdict [against Kmiec] is guilty!")? Who, Eileen, impanelled you as a juror in the first place? (3) *Quo warranto*? as Sister Callista, the renowned IHM Latinist would, I'm sure, have asked. *By what warrant* have you decided to pose as a juror (i.e., in your mind's eye) in the first place? In all actuality, there is no cause of action against Professor Kmiec under canon or any other form of law. Were there one under canon law, it would have been filed by now. I speak as someone who supported canon lawyer Marc Balestrieri's action filed in 2004 against John Kerry.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:41 PM By JLS
Sister Act, why are you confusing the topic of proportionate reason? You confuse its existence with its applicability in the recent election. That is, you confuse its potential with a specific action of it.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:09 PM By Dan
I think the most interesting aspect of all this is that Kmiec was Mahoney's guest at the seminary. The Cardinal, ultimately responsible for priestly formation, knew Kmiec was a controversial figure and nevertheless gave him free reign to speak, and by limiting the questions afterwards to 3, kept possible "inconveniences" to a minimum. The program seemed valuable to me in what it revealed about Obama (and about Kmiec), but I am left wondering about what it means about Mahoney.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:39 PM By cjo
WHY WAS KMIEC INVITED TO CARDINAL MAHONY'S SEMINARY??? WHY HAS THE CARDINAL NEVER GIVEN A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT ON THE INTRINSIC EVIL OF ABORTION AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO IS THE MOST PRO ABORTION MEMBER OF THE SENATE. YET KMIEC'S RATIONALIZATION FOR VOTING FOR OBAMA WAS PUBLISHED IN THE TIDINGS !!!!
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:32 PM By Loyolalaw98
The salt in this wound is that this outrage occurred at the "Newman Eberhardt" Lecture. The late Fr. Eberhardt was the last bastion of orthodoxy at St. John's. Twenty years ago he was a rara avis, today his kind is extinct.
To anyone who knew Fr. Eberhardt, as undoubtedly Cardinal Mahoney did, this is really SMARMY. Shame on the Archbishop of Los Angeles, and Fr. Eberhardt's Vincentian confreres for desacrating his memory in this way!
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:13 PM By Janie Watts
Jane V, what have you done? A blogger owes her readers the effort of reading the article under discussion with due care. The present article reports that during a Q-and-A following Professor Kmiec's talk, "a priest in the audience proposed a hypothetical situation in which Kmiec has a telephone conversation with the pope [on whether or not Kmiec's reading of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's "proportional reasons" letter is correct]." June, it is Kmiec's priest-questioner, not Kmiec, who proposes this hypothetical.
Yet you declare: "He [Kmiec] only believes if the pope tells him in person. What makes this man [Kmiec] think that the Pope would pick him out of all Catholics to personally teach him a truth that most Catholics know already know in their hearts." But Professor Kmiec no more came up with the papal-phone-call hypothetical than did Bob Newhart. All Professor Kmiec did was obligingly answer the hypothetical as posed by an astute questioner--the priest in the audience.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:53 PM By The original Frank
I read the "great/not great" exchange between Kmiec and Obama with much interest. What seems missing from the account is discussion of WHY some mothers are in a state of "just barely knowing where they're going to eat..." How is it that a father can sire a child and walk away? How is it that the father who doesn't walk away, who works long hours and tries to support her, can be paid a tiny fraction of what Captains of Industry are paid, and be saddled with immense medical bills? Legal prohibition would reduce the number of abortions, but it can't address these critical MORAL questions or improve the lives of babies who are born to mothers who can't welcome them. I'm with Kmiec, Cardinal George, my own bishop, and the other bishops: Let's use legal, social and economic means to reduce the number of abortions. All of them.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:23 PM By dan
"” Kmiec said that “except for the abortion issue, Obama and the bishops are talking the same platform.” " Kmiec is either remarkably blind in this observation or purposefully deceitful. He supposes the world view of Roe v Wade differs from that of the bishops only with regards to abortion. But the Roe v Wade world view is a seismic shift from natural law and not surprisingly those supporting abortion on demand generally support sexual license and libertarian views repugnant to the bishops. I think Kmiec is a smart man, and that leads me to conclude he has sold his soul. No one pure of heart and mind would ever make such a statement about the "same platform." Add to this the disingenous comment about republican choices not improving pro-life prospects, ignoring Scalia, Alito and Thomas --well -- Kmiec has some soul-searching to do.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:27 AM By Karen Hall
"The biggest division among the bishops, said Kmiec, was “over the question of whether the protection of human life must come only from cultural and economic resources or only from legal approaches."
The house is on fire! Let's form a committee to decide whether to dial 911 or call the station house.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:53 AM By JLS
ToF, you ask, "How is it that a father can sire a child and walk away?" The liberals voted for this effect. The fathers can do this because there is nothing stopping the irreverent ones.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:56 AM By JLS
Kmiec bought into the question of thinking himself exalted to the level of the Pope ... He did this because of his unbridled vanity. Humility on the other hand would have been to announce his obedience to his own bishop.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:46 AM By Eileen
Verkola, So you saved the best (supporting Mark Ballesteri) for last to try and distract the fact that Doug Kmiec is wrong for betraying his own faith. Pretty clever. Verkola, you ask who impanelled me as juror to find a verdict of guilty for Doug Kmiec. You should already know that answer but since you obviously don't, how about obedience to God 's fifth Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? That is God's Law Verkola. Have you forgotten about that one? Even Sister Callista would want you to purchase some sun screen and a hat for your next trip to Malibu.... Then you wont have to quote her *Quo Warranto* for something you should have remembered from grade school called the Ten Commandments. Doug Kmiec should have remembered the fifth Commandment too. A more important question that needs answering is "Who has impanelled you to constantly demonstrate a pattern of posts that make excuses for, distract and defend dissenters?" It is obvious that even infrequent sun exposure in Malibu can be quite dangerous. You say " There is no cause of action against Professor Kmiec under canon law or any other form of law". Hold your horses there Verkola. The Highest Supreme Court of Justice from God will certainly have cause of action for an intelligent Catholic Law Professor who squandered his God given gifts and talents by using them to enable others to be complicit in the slaughter of unborn children.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:29 AM By St. Christopher
Sister Act, your logic is difficult to follow. Kmiec is dead wrong by saying that the abortion battle is over and that Catholics must now concentrate on lessening its numbers. Cardinal Ratzinger never conceded that a Catholic can cooperate with such evil. Kmiec is nothing but a shill for liberals and is know quoted, with apparent support, by upstanding publications such as the Washington Post as a "conservative" within the Church. Many within the Church, indeed perhaps most bishops, would like the abortion controversy to simply go away. I expect that they will embrace new spokesmen like Kmiec.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:56 AM By R. J. Keyes
In reply to Jason 1975: Abortion is an intrinsic evil, and because it is a supercedingly great evil it has priority as an issue in the public sphere. This consideration, which you stress, does not however necessarily preclude "the presence of proportional reasons" for voting for candidates such as Barack Obama and John McCain who reject the proposition that preborn infants are persons under public law.
Cardinal Ratzinger would not have written his letter on the permissibility of voting for such candidates as Kerry and Bush (or just recently, as applied, Obama and McCain), stressing as the Cardinal did "the presence of proportional reasons", if no such reasons could possibly exist on account of the intrinsic evil of abortion itself or an account of the execrably large number of US abortions. You might consider that a subtle or over-subtle point, but, I'm sorry, it is the very point of Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:04 AM By manolmontana
Mr. Kmiec, please, for the love of God, don't equate the bishops with Barack because they really are not! In fact they are opposite in many areas. Be real. You are misleading people......
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:54 AM By JLS
Keyes, you persistently speculate as to what and why the Pope wrote a letter. In effect, you are simply re-writing it and signing his name.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:10 AM By Susan
I have to question how many of those who blog on this site were actually present at the lecture last week. The comments made here seem more based on soundbites than coming from those who listened to the presentation with an open mind and heart. It is clear that abortion will not be stopped by a president committed to appointing "pro-life" judges. We have travelled that path for over 30 years but have not reached our destination. Perhaps it is time to address the social concerns that contibute to the need for abortions. Pre-natal and post natal care and care for the newborn babies are critical to reducing this evil. Teaching personal accountability to our children would go a long way as well.
I am deeply troubled by the personal attacks that are aimed at Professor Kmiec by those who disagree with him. You will not find a more committed Catholic, in love with the Eucharist and his Church than Doug Kmiec. He has dedicated much of his legal career to the unborn and continues to do so. His recognition that overturning Roe v Wade may not be the way to end the evil of abortion does not negate the commitment he has to this issue. It does acknowledge that we need to come at the cause from another angle. Professor Kmiec has long advocated that morallity does not need to be legislated to be lived. Perhaps you all might better serve the cause of the unborn by giving up you vile comments and going out and doing something - find an expectant mother that needs your help, collect diapers for new moms who have to recycle, hold a baby shower for new moms in crisis. Show women who would contemplate having an abortion by your actions, not just your words, that you will truly support their decision for life.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:38 AM By JLS
Susan, thanks for supplying the missing sentiment that will change those wolves into lambs. As for addressing the social concerns, the Church has done this for twothousand years ... so, you never knew this, and to you it's all new? The fact that Kmiec continues to have the same banal apologies made after the fact of the election demonstrates that he and his disciples continue to try and vote their way into Heaven.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:22 PM By R. J. Keyes
In reply to JLS: Far from a rewrite on my part, my reading of of Cardinal Ratzinger's "proportional reasons" letter is reflective, I venture, of the common and fair reading that has been given this letter by the clergy and laity alike. Were it otherwise, the bishops would call the entire Catholic vote (save the vote for Alan Keyes) to account, on the (falsely) rigoristic assumption that a vote for Obama--and a vote for McCain--is a vote that is per se sinful.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:24 PM By The original Frank
Susan: Your post seems to have more information than all the earlier comments put together.
So *were* you at the lecture, or do you have another source of information to pass along? Thanks,...
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:31 PM By The original Frank
JLS: So it's the liberals who cause fathers to abandon their unborn children?
It is mostly conservatives who vote against WIC, living wage, universal health care and other programs which would
stand between a young mother and despair.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:59 PM By Susan
To the original Frank -
I was at the lecture and I have heard Professor Kmiec speak numerous times and follow his writings.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:38 PM By JLS
No matter where you go with your interpretation, Keyes, there you are with it again, showing it in yet another light. I don't know of any bishops who have said that a vote for McCain was sinful, but onehundred said that of Obama.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:39 PM By JLS
ToF, which party instigated the removal of marriage and divorce laws?
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:59 PM By Sister Act
In reply to St. Christopher: I've never said that the abortion battle--including the *crucial legal dimension* of this battle--is over; nor have I ever commented on Professor Kmiec's position on this point. (I am not sure what that position is.) Still, Professor Kmiec has contributed to the legal discussion on abortion in major ways, not least in pointing out the error of those politicans and Supreme Court Justices who, on a safely hypothetical perch, would return the abortion question to state legislatures ("overturn _Roe v. Wade_," in the language that for decades has hoodwinked a segment of the pro-life movement) but return abortion to the state legislatures to vote FOR abortion if these legislatures so decide, which is the same as to say, to vote on the question of abortion as if preborn infants were NOT always already invested with the right to life (1) under the common law and (2) on account of these infants' inclusion within the term "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amednment. On (1) and (2), I agree with the posts of John F. Maguire and R. J. Keyes.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 4:57 PM By R. J. Keyes
In reply to JLS: I never said that a vote for McCain was necessarily sinful anymore than I said that a vote for Obama was necessarily sinful; I said that a vote for McCain is a vote for just the sort of candidate Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to in his 2004 letter: namely, a candidate for whom a vote would be sinful "precisely because" (Ratzinger) the VOTER supports McCain's refusal--or Obama's refusal--to recognize the preborn infant as a juridical person, with attendant rights. As a matter of habitual civic practice, JLS, most Catholic voters do not vote for a non-ideal candidate
"precisely because" that candidate has refused to include preborn infants within the protection of public law. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is addressed indirectly but especially to
these voters.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:33 PM By JLS
S. Act, in one breath you say you don't know what Kmiec says, allege that he has contributed to something good, namely a discussion, and then in all your confessed ignorance advocate him for the position of redefining Catholic dogma in America. Most interesting is your allegation to not know something about his pitches which is obvious to many people. Faith, S. Act, is not written but a spiritual response, which brings with it much more than can be bickered about with the type of levity that can only be resolved by a jury. Your argument is pure materialism and does not include religion, even though you employ some religious terms. On a strategic level of your materialism, you've got a flaw anyway. By returning abortion to the states, it is possible that some states would ban it. That would provide a better base for pro-life policies to develop and persuade other states. There would be a showdown between states of death and states of life. The best thing would be that a little state would have as much clout in this contest as a big state. Your strategy to depend on the Supreme Court is phony for three reasons which I've posted time and again here. The official political party of the United States is not going to overturn Roe v Wade. Now your only plausible materialist rebuttal to this idea is that therefore it makes no difference which candidate one voted for from a Catholic Magisterial perspective. However, that has been my point: The only way is to raise up a third party with the bishops bolstering it with their enthusiasm.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:44 PM By JLS
Keyes, I understand what you have been posting. I am also aware of your continued use of your special gift of knowing what is in the minds of everyone else. Or, wait, if not a special gift of mindreading, then it must be a profound grasp of statistical studies ... yeah, that's it. But that is the same as any other materialist argument, in that it can never rise to the level of faith or religion. The Catholic religion is not ultimately ruled by law or sociological discoveries, or governing wiles, but by God, Who operates normally through bishops. Onehundred of them plus the Cardinal in charge of Faith have spoken on this. As I've posted elsewhere, they rule. That is Catholic faith and religion, not materialist arguments and strategies. Jesus Christ spoke to this problem several times.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:05 PM By The original Frank
JLS: My friend, I'm much too young to remember who changed marriage laws. I assume you refer to
"no-fault" divorce? I doubt very much that anyone still in office had
anything to do with it. But I could be wrong,...
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:32 PM By JLS
Keyes, the real problem is the disunity in the Catholic Church in the U.S. The bishops are said to be too weak, to say too little, to avoid instructing the faithful. Why is this? Might it have something to do with the long term agreement at the top levels that forbids the bishops from teaching or commanding in any way that would threaten the non-Catholic powers that be? How do you see Kmiec helping the bishops in this regard, especially now that onehundred bishops and the American Cardinal first in line to the Pope have weighed in decisively in this effort to initiate unity? They have indeed raised the battle flag, and Kmiec and his followers do not see it. What is it that you see instead?
|
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:15 PM By JLS
Before no fault divorce. At mid-century a divorce took five years to finalize. This law may have run on the books into the 80s. It helped regulate the wellbeing of children, and was held in place by public will. *** Spiritual warfare, which is what the Church is involved in, pits men against powers, forces and various things that are not material. It doesn't matter much which men hold office in our government or which party they're in ... if they do not live a strong Catholic faith, then they are subjects of these various powers, forces, principalities and so forth, in a different way than the faithful are subjects to such things. Those who stand strong in the Catholic faith are not easily to be found in our government today, such few do not hold much sway in government. The U.S. government is not disposed favorably to the Church, nor has it ever been, but is hostile to Her. It is a hostility which waxes and wains with the good will of the populace.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:18 AM By Kathy
It sure looks to this noncatholic like many Catholics voted their wallets above their faith.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:00 AM By Fr. M.P.
The same argument keep circulating. Many Bishops, as authentic and official interpreters of the Church said that one does not have proportionate reasons for voting for Obama in this particular election based on circumstances. Others here personally interpret a clause in Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to say that its perfectly OK - a nice excuse. What person in their right moral mind thinks that totally unrestricted abortion through federal law and funding of same around the world is equivalent to the alternative proposed, while not perfect is much more restricted? Have you seen the resistance to the Bush administration trying to codify the "conscience clauses" so that Obama-FOCA won't eliminate them? What about that proportionality? Why is that the same?
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:09 AM By Dai Yoshida
JLS: I have a hard time believing that there is some kind of conspiracy at the top level of the US Church to muzzle the Bishops. To be fair, many bishops were advised by their Diocesan attorneys to remain silent in political matters to protect their tax exempt status. My pastor was given a lengthy guideline from the Diocese to follow when speaking from the pulpit. To his credit, Father pushed the envelope as far as he can. At least our Bishop sent out a legal guideline. Many Diocese simply told their priests to avoid politics completely. I find it odd however, that many non-Catholic clergies can say whatever they wish and openly support candidates without threat to their tax status. Perhaps someone can explain to me why only the Catholic Church seems to be playing by the rule.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:40 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: You write: "The Catholic religion is not ultimately ruled by law...." If by "ultimately" you mean the ultimate state of heavenly life understood as an immediate participation in the trinitarian life of God, there is a certain truth in what you say. But in our present penultimate state, that is, in our historical state until the end of the world, we as human persons are indeed under the law--the New Law of Christ. From which fact it follows that the Catholic religion is--presently--ruled by law, namely, this same New evangelical Law of Christ. In what has now become a famous passage in the _Summa Theologica_, Thomas Aquinas writes: "[This] New Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Spirit, according to Rom 8.2:
'The law of the Spirit of Christ [is] in Christ Jesus, etc.' Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Spirit" (STI, second part, Q. 106, Art. 4, Reply obj. 3). No other law, then, can supercede the Law of Christ. In this connection, the historian and political scientist Eric Voegelin warned us against "emanentizing the eschaton," that is, he warned us against scanting the law, as if in human history eschatological ultimacy could trump law--law understood as the natural law (of which positive law partakes) and law understood as the evangelical law, which is the New Law of the Gospels.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:22 PM By Thuvia Parth
In reply to Susan: Bravo! A report from someone who actually attended Professor Kmiec's talk. What a ray of genine illumination! One of the taglines in an old sketch-comedy radio show was: "Wuz you dare, Charlie?" I am delighted, Susan, that in God's providence you were there! Editor's Note: Our reporter on this story was also there.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:13 PM By John F. Maguire
In reference to my own post on Voegelin on Aquinas, I meant to type at 10:40 AM above: "immanentizing the eschaton". To elaborate: This phrase means the attempt to render "immanent" within the limits of historical experience what can only be realized beyond human history. The phrase was coined by the historiosopher Eric Voegelin in his 1952 book _The New Science of Politics_; for a Thomist critique of Voegelin, see Frederick D. Wilhelmsen,
"Professor Voegelin and the Christian Tradition," in F. D. Wilhelmsen, _Christianity and Political Philosophy_ (1978). Although Professor Voegelin's phrase is not used in the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_, this catechism does appear to allude to it: "The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history the messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of milleniarianism, especially the 'intrinsically perverse' political form of a secular messianism" (CCC 676).
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:50 PM By JLS
There is, Mr. Maguire, a condition where a person can rise to a state unaffected by law. We should always strive for this; it is what the Great Commission seems to be about. Jesus says something about the law and the prophets, maybe it's the Eleventh and Greatest Commandment. The law only applies when one does not carry this out. But at times there are those who carry this out and thus we can see that religion is more than the law.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:58 PM By JLS
Dai Yoshida, I don't mean to imply a conspiracy at all. Simply it is that the Church in this country was ruled over by non-Catholics, and accords have resulted out of that condition. Some of these may be formal, but I don't know. In other words there has grown out of this the relationship between the Catholic Church and government in this nation. In some European and Latin American nations it is not like this. If the American bishops go over the established line in their proclamations, preaching or teaching then they will be disciplined by the government. The ostensible means of this is revocation of tax exemption, but it could be worse. What I would like to see, now since there are so many millions of Catholics who have some wealth and power, although these are not in government, since they are not allowed there ... I'd like to see the bishops unite the Catholics behind the fundamental causes such as abortion. I believe it is time for the Church here to rise up, and this is how I view the recent proclamations against voting abortion by over one third of the bishops and including Cardinal Stafford, in charge of faith for the entire Church.
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:13 PM By JLS
"Have you seen the resistance to the Bush administration trying to codify the "conscience clauses" so that Obama-FOCA won't eliminate them? What about that proportionality? Why is that the same?" Fr. M.P., what's this about?
|
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:11 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Since I've shown (I hope) that Thomas Aquinas teaches that the law includes both the natural law and the evangelical law, your thesis that there is "a condition where a person can rise to a state unaffected by law" seems to me quite evidently to run contrary to what St. Thomas means by law, be it the natural law or the evangelical law--that is, if we restrict ourselves to human history and avoid "immanentizing the eschaton" by
taking care NOT to "claim...to realize within history [something] which can only be realized beyond history..." (CCC 676). Of course, since the natural law is based on the very nature of the human person, the human person can never attain "to a state unaffected by the [natural] law." Likewise, since the evangelical law turns on the exercise of charity, and since charity (unlike faith and hope) remains a virtue in heaven, it is hard to see how, in this life or in the next, one can be free (or as a friend of Christ, want to be free) of the virtue of charity. Maybe, then, you mean that there is a state in which a person can rise to a state unaffected by the fear of punishment due to transgressions against the law. Just so. I'd rather then read you as saying something Pauline like that than read you in a virtually Hindu sense. A Hindu, I'm postulating, might well say that "a person can rise to a state unaffected by the law" and mean the law of Karma. A state unaffected by the the law of Karma is: Nirvana.
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 5:24 AM By Fr. M.P.
For the conscience clause situation, look for "Last-minute Bush abortion ruling causes furor" at the International Herald Tribune on November 18. And for the practical situation on conspiracy, widespread lack of holiness allows the horned one to have easy influence, especially on those in obstinate mortal sin, therefore the behaviors from hell, which are well coordinated from below, will be rampant. That includes bad clergy. Evil-doers will use whatever deception they can to get their evil approved and codified into "law." In that sense there is definitely a worldwide conspiracy. We can see that with abortion and homosexual behavior, especially in CA, the poster child of such evils, which means that CA will be the poster child of God's Justice too.
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 6:08 AM By Dai Yoshida
JLS: Do you know if any legitimate religious denomination has ever had their tax exempt status revoked for participating in Presidential politics? I'm starting to think that the Catholic Bishops in this country are following an unenforced law. I agree with you that bishops should unite prominent Catholics behind fundamental Catholic causes. Unfortunately, I don't believe USCCB is up to the task and many financially prominent Catholics are too much of social pragmatists to take that step.
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 6:47 AM By JLS
No, here is why it doesn't, Mr. Maguire. You mention hinduism, and I can see how my imperfectly composed post could be taken to point towards something along that line. But this is a good point also, that within man, even pagan man, there is innate a quality that yearns for a state wherein there is no law. Charity is likely the best place to try to see this. Yes, there is a law of charity, however this law does not comprise the entirety of charity. Another type of example: If one says that God cannot contradict Himself, then it can also be said that this implies that God is subject to a law. However, and this will sound funny perhaps, this would not be a charitable statement. But God is not subject to anything; therefore, it is not true to say that there is a law that He cannot contradict Himself. I suspect that in order to get a clear view of this law concept, it is necessary to deal with the meaning of the word "law".
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 4:38 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: You write: "If one says that God cannot contradict Himself, then it can also be said that this implies that God is subject to a law." No, I do not think such an implication can be drawn. ~ There are many reasons why not. (1) God's absolute perfection precludes any subjection to law. (2) God's absolute self-sufficiency precludes subjection. (3) God's perfect understanding precludes it. (4) God's infinity precludes it. (5) God's absolute simplicity precludes it. (6) God's omniscience precludes it; etc. At the same time, precisely on account of (1) - (6) etc., it remains always and ever true that God cannot contradict Himself. Still, JLS, in regard to our initial disagreement, your claim was not that God is not subject to law, but rather that "the Catholic religion is not ultimately ruled by law." In my post at 10:40 AM, I argued that within human history the Catholic religion is bound by both natural and evangelical law, that is, by both the law written on the hearts of all men and the New Law, the evangelical Law, brought by Christ.
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 5:56 PM By JLS
Maguire, thanks for eloquently restating what I said. On your second point, the Church is ruled by God, not by the Law. Moses ruled God's people by the Law; now Jesus rules by charity which is not subject to the Law, as you've said. There was a past discussion pitting the idea that we are ruled by the office of the pope and the person of the pope. Jesus gave the keys to a person, not the other way around. It is the sacrifice that consecrates the altar, not the other way around. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. The evangelical law is used by the popes and bishops to rule, but it does not rule. The pope rules. Simple proof: If this were not the case, there would be no need for unity of God and man, ie God and the pope, or God and the Church, or Holy Communion. It is an extremely and even ultimately awesome realization that our ultimate ruler on this earth is the pope, a man just as we are men. The pope is the "man" of the Man-God Jesus Christ.
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 6:53 PM By Fr. M.P.
Only sinners need law, which works by fear of punishment or nasty consequences. Those who resist God's Will need to be told not to do bad things, and to do good things (e.g. avoid omissions). Totally charitable persons need no law whatsoever, since they will do the right thing because of love. God needs, no law, neither does Our Lady. Saints in heaven (Church Triumphant) no longer need law, but we Church Militant down here do indeed need it for now. Charity provides the unity which eliminates the need for law. Jesus made the moral law of the 10 Commandments more strict than what was given via Moses, e.g. no divorce, he who looks at a woman with lusty thoughts commits adultery, etc.
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 7:42 PM By JDiscerner
i am very sad to say, this is one of the reasons why i would not want to attend this school for seminary. there are many guys like me who fear the diocesan priesthood for just the same reasons. even sadder, we feel helpless in the matter. we feel like we're the pariahs, those who desire a stricter observance of Church teachings.
regards,
unsure vocation discerner
|
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 9:32 PM By JLS
One important phrase that I can use to improve on my explanation: Faith and Reason. These are two different things.
|
Posted Saturday, November 22, 2008 5:35 AM By Larry Carstens
Note to Susan, Frank and Thuvia: I attended Professor Kmiec's talk at St. John's. I don't question his faith, intelligence, prolife beliefs, erudition or ability to articulate his views with grace and charm. I do question his judgment. When we consider that some very intelligent and sincere people have lent their support to some of the worst monsters of history (Neville Chamberlain and Martin Heidegger come to mind), I can only hope and pray that Prof. Kmiec will recognize his error sooner rather than later. Downplaying "the abortion issue" in favor of some nice-looking social-justice program that favors the poor and the "little guy" (as long as he's not too little) is not acceptable. One innocent child being cut to pieces because of "the choice of the mother" is one too many; forty million is, as most prolifers say, a holocaust. Unlike Professor Kmiec, R.J. Neuhaus (whom Kmiec disparaged during his talk) had a far more sober and accurate analysis of our times. On the website of Firstthings.com, Neuhaus said: The truly ominous possibility, indeed likelihood, is that Obama does not see his extreme positions on abortion as being extreme at all. They are the entrenched orthodoxies of the parties that got him to where he is. Those in opposition are viewed as a recalcitrant minority guilty of perpetuating divisiveness, and the time has come to break their back once and for all. I hope I am wrong, but this strikes me as the more plausible understanding of the Freedom of Choice Act and other measures aimed at “bringing us together again.”
|
Posted Saturday, November 22, 2008 11:48 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Yes, the pope has jurisdiction over all Catholics but also over all souls within his (earthly) jurisdiction; this, on account of his Petrine office as Vicar of Christ on earth. But we as Catholics do not on that account call the pope *ultimo*; he is no more than--but also no less than--Christ's vicar on earth. The doctrine of the social kingship of Christ acknowledge's Christ's Lordship *present* Lordship, in relationship to which Lordship the bishop of Rome is no more than but no less than: Christ's Vicar. It is unacceptably equivocal, then, to refer to the pope as
"ultimate ruler on this earth," as if the popes themselves had never promulgated the doctrine of the social kingship of Christ. Christ the King, hic et nunc in terra (here and now on earth), reigns as King of kings. Whence Holy Church's introduction of the Feast of Christ the King. The Church had good (remedial) reason for doing so. "The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ Himself to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern people in all that pertains to their salvation, that right was denied." Indeed, "If Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men purchased by His precious blood, are by a new right subjected to His dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must first be clear 'He must reign in our minds...in our wills...in our hearts...in our bodies and in our members...as instruments of justice unto God.'" (Pope Pius XI, _Quas Primas_, December 11, 1925).
|
Posted Saturday, November 22, 2008 6:58 PM By JLS
So, Mr. Maguire, why are you disputing me, if you indeed are? Since you say the same thing although more eloquently. A pope rule the earth in the stead of Christ, Who has given him the keys to the Kingdom. What else is there to rule? Exactly what you have quoted. Our work is to advance our souls towards the Beattific Vision asap. This means to teach and disciple the nations unto all parts of the earth. The secula mind would tend to think that ruling means lesser things, but these lesser things are our actions as a world community. The Church is tasked to always move this community towards the perfection of Christ. This cannot be done with an end run around abortion.
|
Posted Saturday, November 22, 2008 10:03 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: *Disputing* is probably too strong a term, but in my post of 11:48 AM, I did aver that I think your
calling the pope "the ultimate ruler on earth" is equivocal--equivocal, that is, inasfar as it is Christ, here and now, who exercises dominion over the earth--also over any pope's pontificate, also over any priest's mass (as the priest is only a co-offeror of the sacrifice of the Mass offered by Christ the sovereign Priest). It is on account of Christ's PRESENT kingship that "we as Catholics do not...call the pope *ultimo*". Nor is the pope "the ultimate ruler on earth" INSTEAD of Christ. That was Luther's charge against the pope. The relationship between Christ and his Vicar, however, is Petrine in its intimacy, which is why Christ's Mother--today as yesterday--strongly urges us always to pray for her Son's Vicar.
|
Posted Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:53 PM By JLS
The priest is "in persona christi", which is more than being co-offerer. The priest in confession absolves the penitent of his or her sins, while "in persona christi", as he is the person of Christ. There is a special union with God here. Ever read the book about Christ the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride, entitled "Song of Solomon"? But the marriage has taken place already in the Eucharist, which makes us one with God. Otherwise it would not be such an awesome religion, but merely the same as all the others.
|
Posted Monday, November 24, 2008 6:53 AM By JLS
So, Mr. Maguire, it boils down to Ultimoto versus Quazimoto.
|
Posted Monday, November 24, 2008 6:32 PM By Fr. M.P.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and there is no higher office anywhere. Therefore you can call that "ultimate on earth" in vernacular terms. Of course God is King of King and Lord of Lords, and is not humanly visible to those on earth, although He is of course fully present - in Spirit and in the Eucharist. Perhaps there is an erroneous inference which interprets that as such which takes away from Jesus. That mirrors the Protestant method, which believes such things like intercessory power of the saints being considered as taking away from Jesus. "Go direct." But Jesus has deigned to leave a human Vicar until His return in the form of the Petrine Office. What is true is that dogma and doctrine have not made any formal definition with "ultimate" in it. Rather, documents like Canon Law (331) use the words "By virtue of his office he possesses *supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power* in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely."
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|