|
Published: September 4, 2008
“He’s a man of faith”
Kmiec stands by his endorsement of Obama
Denver, Sept. 1, 2008 / (CNA) -- Doug Kmiec, the Pepperdine University law professor, former Reagan administration official, onetime dean of the law school at the Catholic University of America, and pro-life Catholic who has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, explained his support for the pro-abortion rights candidate in a meeting of the “Faith in Action” panel on Aug. 28 at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
While granting that deciding when an unborn baby gets human rights is “not above his pay grade,” Kmiec argued that Obama “understands the truth about the human person” and will work to reduce the number of abortions.
 “It’s unusual to be here,” Kmiec said as he began his remarks to the audience seated in a convention center ballroom. Describing how the Catholic vote is important because of its size, potential, and record of voting for the winning presidential candidate, Kmiec said Catholics “know how to pick a winner, and I picked Barack.”
He supports Obama, Kmiec explained, because “he’s a man of faith” with the “best articulation of church-state problems.”
“This man understands the truth of a human person,” Kmiec argued.
Saying the phrase “culture of life” is used a lot, Kmiec declared, “I, too, am pro-life.” However, he added, being pro-life “has to be a commitment to all life.” Not providing a living wage is one way in which some self-professed pro-lifers are not committed to all life, he said.
Kmiec claimed that some people are making arguments “in the disguise of faith” that it is a sin to vote for Obama. He said this was a “false statement.”
In conversation after the conclusion of the panel, Kmiec further explained that he thought too many pro-life voters act as if voting for a candidate who promises to change the makeup of the Supreme Court fulfils their pro-life responsibilities, when that does not help “real women with real circumstances.”
He argued that both the Common Good for the Common Ground study and a Center for Disease Control study both show a positive correlation between poverty and abortion. According to Kmiec, they also show that the largest numbers of abortions are obtained by women in the “meanest, cruelest” circumstances. “We also know that rates of abortion go down when the country is prosperous,” he claimed.
On April 18, at a Mass for the Ventura/LA North chapter of Legatus, a group made up of well-to-do Catholics in business, an unnamed college chaplain refused to give Kmiec communion based on his support for the pro-abortion Obama.
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:45 AM By Faith
This is just another case of a status hungry academic trying to separate himself from what most academics (even on some Catholic and Christian campuses) view as the lower status pro-lifers. It is sad that he will influence students in embracing (as he has) the culture of death.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:18 AM By St Christopher
He is wrong. It is a sin to vote for rabidly pro-abortion Obama. Kmiec's logic is flawed by his adducing that abortion is not so bad in that it is one of many "pro-life" indicators. Abortion, in virtually all examples, is murder and is forbidden under the Ten Commandments and throughout all of Christ's teachings. Obama is a thorough modern day American pagan, not a man of faith. Kmiec is blinded by Obama's artful use of poverty to mask the moral wrong of abortion. Add another vote for evil.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:57 AM By Ron
All I can say is hooray!!! for the un-named college chaplin who refused Mr. Kmiec communion. Oh, by the way, Mr. Kmiec that fellow with the sulphur smelling breath and the red eyes that inspired you to back Obama is the same one who apparently has attached a lien on your soul. God Bless.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:18 AM By RayC55
This is the best answer I've read regarding when does conception begin:
"
“You know why they call it birth control? Because it’s meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condom knows when life begins. To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?” —Peggy Noonan
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:06 AM By Jon
How can you call Kmiec "pro-life"? Can a Jew be a Nazi? Can an apostate be a Catholic? Can an atheist be a theist? Some things in life are mutually exclusive: supporting the party of abortion and being pro-life is one of them.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:23 AM By Ted
The chaplain who refused to distribute communion to Mr. Kmiec is to be congratulated. Kmiec's denial doesn't make voting for the rabidly pro-abortion Obama any less wrong in a moral sense.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:23 AM By BobM
Maybe Kmiec should put his reading glasses back on, open hi heart and head, and recall:
"The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination“ (19).
--Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter
The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:08 AM By mary
If this man knew the "truth about the human person" he would endorse the pro-life candidate. These high profile "Catholics" who support pro-abortion candidates should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist. Shame on him. In addition, pro-choice office holders like Pelosi should also not be allowed to participate in Communion. They should be held accountable. They make us true Catholics look wishy washy. Pope Benedict made it very clear, "If you're pro-abortion, you do not receive the Eucharist". Now let us all enforce his word. If you know of a Catholic candidate or office holder or someone who is high-profile, who is pro-choice, please expose him/her to your Bishop. This has got to stop!
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:30 AM By Sick and Tired
To say that a politician understands the truth of ANYTHING is deceiving. They may understand the truth, but as with most lawyers, it can be rationalized to fit whatever agenda suits him best. In this case, Mr. Kmiec is rationalizing Obama's pro-choice position because he will somehow bring prosperity to impoverished areas, thus reducing the number of abortions sought. We are therefore supposed to take away from this that Obama will bring prosperity to these impoverished areas if elected. That's quite a stretch. Predictably, when it doesn't happen, the lawyer will again rationalize how his position was rooted in good faith, therefore blocking any inkling of guilt that could potentially creep into that severely atrophied conscience.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:37 AM By Mary
Applause for the courageous chaplain. Mr. Kmiec gives a bad name to lawyers. He uses half truths to discredit the moral teaching of the Church...namely there is a hierarchy of values, life being at the top.
He infers that social justice can trump the right to life from inception to death. It cannot.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:01 AM By The original Frank
This CCD story, cribbed from CNS, leaves out too many of Kmiec's reasons for supporting Obama. Full story is at: http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13682 --||-- Example from the CNS story: Kmiec recalled [Obama's] answer when the minister asked if Obama believes Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." "He thought very carefully," Kmiec said, before answering: "Reverend, he *is* my way." --||-- Other than his vapid "above my pay grade" nonsense, I believe Obama's self-revealing answers show a profoundly more contemplative and from-the-heart commitment to Christianity than McCain's "talk the Christian talk" answers.
Editor's response: The attribution for this story appears in bold lettering in the first line of the item, so it could hardly be said to have been "cribbed." It is customary practice among professional publications to edit wire stories for length -- especially in this case, when the additional length consisted of self-serving platitudes having nothing to do with Sen. Obama's 100% support for abortion. In our view, we served our readers by removing what was clearly meant to be obfuscation.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:02 AM By JLS
Kmiec has sold his credibility.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:16 AM By Cyrus Johnson
Obama is 40 million persons short in his understanding of the human person, but what's 40 million persons among friends - fellow "winners" of "the Catholic vote"?! I propose that these folks treat Catholic voters in a similar, though far far less barbaric, way as they treat the unborn - "based on my definition of reality, they are mine, all mine." And Professor Kmiec does what he does best, promote himself. Ah, but what else is he promoting?
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:24 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Put in simple terms, Doug Kmiec is an apostate Catholic, and the damage that he is doing to the Church is inestimable.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:52 AM By Eric
I wish more Catholics would truly understand and appreciate Catholic Social Teaching, the Catechism, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop's Forming Consciences for what it represents. As Catholics, we are NOT single issue voters and cannot use the fact that a candidate is pro-abortion (Obama), pro-fetal stem cell (Obama & McCain), or an adulterer (McCain) as a mere pre-text to reject that candidate. We need to look at the Church's teaching as an integral whole, reflect upon it, use our reason, and exercise prudence. We cannot let others do our thinking for us. We cannot allow the tenets of our faith to be watered down to some market place, multiple choice like Catholic Answers has done--a total disservice to the serious Catholic. I cannot quarrel with Doug Kmiec's decision.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:56 AM By Servant'sHeart
What is the plan to make abortions more rare? More Planned Parenthood clinics in our neighborhoods dispensing contraceptives that fail?
More sex-ed programs that encourage rampant promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases among our youth?
No thanks, Doug. No thanks, Obama. The faith you place in contraception leaves my servant's heart cold.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:03 AM By Eileen
Doug Kmiec?.... A man of faith or an educated man with invinceable ignorance? Mr. Kmiec claims that, "Obama understands the human person?" Is that why Obama stated that he would not want his own daughter, if faced with an unwanted pregnancy to be "punished" with a human person? How understanding! The majority of women that I witnessed pulling into killing center parking lots were in brand new fancy vehicles. Most were stylishly dressed with the latest fashions. Some even bragged that a baby would interfere with their college or travel plans. Many cavalierly stated that it was their second or third abortion. Yes, there are poor women but the real point was so beautifully stated by Blessed Mother Teresa when she said, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish". Mr. Kmiec obviously needs further education to understand that the "meanest and cruelest" circumstance, is experienced by the baby who is being ripped apart in their own mother's womb.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:20 AM By The original Frank
Try a Google search on "sex education correlation". Skip over the opionion-only results and you'll find evidence that more sex education correlates with MORE responsible sexual behavior, LESS fornication and aduldery, and LOWER abortion rates. It may feel rigeous to condemn sexual openness, but the FACT is that simple-minded "solutions" to complex social issues often have opposite results to what's intended. Examine Kmiec's analysis carefully (not just the truncated CCD version) and you'll find someone who doesn't fit the ugly epithets I read above.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:38 AM By Doorman
Sadly, Mr. Kmiec, though I suspect he's well meaning, has somehow allowed him self to be deluded. I suspect part of it is because he saw in Obama what is a charismatic and seemingly likable figure, and also was probably personally tired of some of the empty and or tired rhetoric of the current administration. He so much wanted to like Obama and be convinced that he was good for this country, that he did mental gymnastics to find a way to approve him. This is sometimes referred to as Cognitive Dissonance. The fact is, that Obama isn't just a person who is pro-choice in the sense that he truly thinks that abortion is an undesirable, but 'feels' judgemental 'imposing' his morals on someone else. He isn't just a politician that is neutral on the point of abortion (eg. Rudy Giuliani), but Obama is a highly aggresive pro-abort. His statement regarding his own daughters not being 'punished' with a baby is a perfect example. He is the type that believes that a baby is better off being aborted or even killed shortly after birth if that baby will grow up in a difficult environment. We know this by Obama's OWN statements. He was one of the leaders opposing the Born Alive act in Chicago. The only way someone could justify allowing a baby to die (or be killed) that is now out of the mothers womb, is no longer the legal responsibility of that mother and is no longer physically attached to that mother in any way, is for them to actually believe that it's better for that baby and for society for that baby to be dead. That is the height of callousness!!!! It seams obvious by his words and deeds, that Obama is one of those people that believes that one of the best way to eliminate poverty, is to eliminate the poor. This is the socialist attitude. It's what we call 'false compassion'. Their compassion isn't for the actual victims, but for their own feelings of 'shared victimization'. I FEEL your pain. Notice what's emphasized.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:45 AM By Dan
It would have been nice had Kmiec been more specific about what he means when he says Obama is a "man of faith." One thing I notice especially as a convert to Catholicism, is that there tends in some Catholic circles to be a heavy use of generalities like this when there is a desire to obfuscate particulars in a person's belief. I never saw anything like that in evangelicalsim, though doubtless it exists. Also, "original Frank" claims that there is a correlation between sex education and lower fornication and abortion rates. What type of sex education? I have read it makes a difference. I have also read that PP -type sex education correlates positively with increased fornication/abortion. Clarity on this issue is badly needed.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:53 AM By BTJ
a recent interview with Kmiec makes excellent and very Catholic and very pro-life sense: "I fully accept the teaching of the church that participating in abortion is an intrinsic evil? to would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned? " yes but not on the terms usually suggested by Republicans." Given your pro-life views, why do you support Obama?"There is a widesprea misconception that overturniing Roe is the only way to be pro-life. In facct, overturning Roe simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro abortion."Incidentally the celebrant later wrote to Kmiec to apologize... as should most of your bloggers.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:08 AM By Grisha
Servant's Heart: Look at the The Pregnant Women Support Act introduced into Congress by Representative Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:09 AM By Anne T.
I am for good sex education mainly taught by the parents, but we all know that many of those who "seem" responsible have had abortions. Most of the abortions are not to save the life of the mother or for rape or incest, but because someone got caught pregnant outside of marriage or in an affair.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:12 AM By Life Lady
Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for one's actions? Pregnancy is a choice. These people who choose to have relations in order to get pregnant in the first place, and then choose to abort children as a consequence are kidding themselves, and others. We choose in every way, everything that we are directly involved with. We choose to have relations, and then don't like the outcome if it is a surprise pregnancy. People who are "pro choice" need to remember that they chose their situation, and killing a child to get out of it is not a solution, but another bad choice, and Obama is the father of that kind of choice. We would all do well to show up at the polls, and make sure we vote for the other guy, the one who chooses life, not death like Obama. Also, how can someone who advocates murder have any understanding of the human person and want to kill so many of the most vulnerable? Amazing how some can talk themselves into not thinking.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:15 AM By Anne T.
I would like to ask the question regarding my last post: is it "responsible" to have sex outside of marriage or an affair while married, and then kill the child? I think not. I quite frankly have known personally of many such cases. I think we all have. Analysis and polls, The Original Frank, can be very deceiving.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:19 AM By Eileen
Eric, Are you a descendant of Cardinal Bernardin, (May God have Mercy on his soul) or an advisor to Cardinal Mahony? I sense a bit of seamless garment dialogue which is a total disservice to the serious problem of a baby facing impending execution. These babies would have loved to live and care about other social issues. How many lives of future gifted reformers are you willing to sacrifice? Eric, if the basic building block issue of the right to life is not vigorously defended, all other issues will crumble like sandcastles on the seashore. If you really desire to bring complete Catholic social teaching to fruition, you have to defend the basic right to life first. This is not a "single issue". It is basic logic. The horse is vital to pulling the cart of many social issues. Without the horse, your cart is permanently stalled in the mud of common ground. God does not want us to be common, Eric. God wants us to defend life!
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:12 PM By Eric
Eileen:
You have entirely missed my point and back-pedaled into the wrong-headed, single issue mindset that the Catholic Church rejects. Simply voting against a pro-abortion candidate is not enough. The USCCB's Forming Consciences rejects the simplistic view of Catholic Answers that a Catholic voter "must avoid voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil" because if they don't they are indirectly supporting the intrinsic evil. USCCB explained that the question of moral responsibility hinges on the voter's intent.
"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guily of formal cooperation in grave evil." USCCB Forming Consciences at para. 34. Because intent is the hinge, the bishops warned that the intrinsic evil analysis should not become an excuse for a "single-issue" approach to voting: "[A] voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity." Id. In short, our decisions need to be guided by faith and reason. Change does not happen overnight. Any notion that voting against an pro-abortion candidate will automatically prohibit abortions is unrealistic. Explain to me Eileen how your logic squares with Church teaching by focusing solely one issue?
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:46 PM By Anne T.
And I might add, many were using contrapceptives and they failed. And the Pill does sometimes abort.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:52 PM By JLS
Kmiec is caught up in the abuse syndrome: The pro-abortion democratic party has mortally abused unborn babies for decades, and Kmiec, having empathized as a Catholic with the aborted/abused unborn, is however trying desparately to bond with the abuser. This is not exactly how Christ has taught us to engage those hostile to God. *** As for Obama being a man of faith, so was Adolph Hitler, who believed in himself and his pogroms. History castigates those prominent Catholics who abetted Hitler well into the early part of his doomed regime -- and here today we see this same folly reinvigorated and in full bloom.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:34 PM By Servant'sHeart
We all want to see the plan...say you want a revolution...nothing I'd like better than to see the abortion rate go down. Anyone aware that condoms fail? Anyone aware that birth control pills fail? Anyone aware that even abortions fail? Ask that faith-filled man Obama about that. He had to vote against providing medical care for the babies of botched abortions in Illinois.
So, what is the Obama plan? If he wants to put his friends from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, in charge, it ain't gonna happen.
I am not willing to put my faith in a" faith filled man "who will walk over the live bodies of children surviving the wicked abortionist's knife. Are you?
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:26 PM By Anne T.
I left the Democratic party for what they did to the saintly Governor Robert Casey, Sr. and John Cardinal O' Connor. I suggest Keic do so too.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:36 PM By Grisha
Again I have to express my opinion that the strategy of trying to elect a Republican president who will appoint a enough Justices who MIGHT vote to overturn Roe and then hope that a challenge comes to the court hasn't worked for forty years and likely won't in the future. All reversing Roe would do is bring the matter back to the states. There was an article in the Atlantic a few years ago that scenarioizd what might happen then.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:48 PM By garvan
My parents used to use the expression, "There's no fool like an old fool." I suppose one could expand that saying to include a middle-aged professor who has lost his way.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:00 PM By Servant'sHeart
Work as if everything depends upon you. Pray as if everything depends upon God. It does.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:58 PM By Dan
"[A] voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity." I am confused here Eric. Do you mean that single-issue voters ipso-facto are indifferent or inattentive to other important moral issues? Really? Everyone has a built in hierarchy of values which determines their voting. Abortion, being a matter of life and death, is understandably high on that hierarchy for many Catholics. Obama wants to enshrine Roe v. Wade as the permanent law of the land, end of story. Freedom of choice trumps every other moral consideration. So a vote for him is necessarily a contribution to that end, even if your vote for him is for other reasons, say, his compassion for the poor. So in this hierarchy of values, you stake a claim to one set of priorities/values over another. This is your faith and reason at work. OK, I'll buy that. Kmiec has come to the same conclusion. Pro-life for him is not primarily fighting abortion, but working to eliminate proverty etc. . As long as the Kmiecs of this world are very clear about their hierarchy of values; what they put first and what they put last, I am at least happy that we are in dialogue. Now I am imagining myself in 1930s Germany with a voice in choosing the next Chancellor. I know this guy Hitler hates Jews but Germany is a mess and only he can clean it up, restore her industries and the like. So my intent is to see the country lifted out of poverty and the draconian measures imposed by Versailles. Should I look back and be alarmed in later years by my decision?
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:26 PM By Fr. M.P.
"This man understands the truth of a human person." Kmiec certainly doesn't understand that life begins at conception. Neither does Obama, who not only want to kill babies - human persons - in the womb but even after an abortion attempt fails. "Not providing a living wage is one way in which some self-professed pro-lifers are not committed to all life." Well then, Obama and Kmiec are neither committed to all life, given their acceptance of abortion. I suppose this is the subtle way to make economics equivalent to life itself as a platform issue.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:12 PM By Patrick
Pope Benedict just said that abortion is non negational.
Archbishop Burck said voting for abortion is a intrinsical evil.
What part of "NO" does Keic not understand. May God have mercy on him for he is putting himself in the state of mortal sin ..
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:53 PM By JLS
The objective that ought to be worked towards is not splitting the Catholic vote, but uniting it ... since abortion is the primary evil being perpetrated and perpetuated today, then the answer to uniting Catholic voters is either GOP OR third party. The point is to unite Catholic voters.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:19 PM By cjo
Obviously Kmiec took his theology studies from his "mentor" Nancy Pelosi. And one has to wonder why our Cardinal [also Kmiec's Cardinal] has been so silent on this issue?? But he never fails to give an opinion on prudential issues..
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:40 PM By Kathleen Miller
I was deeply impressed by Senator Obama's response to Ms. Palin's pregnancy. He said that his own mother gave birth to him when she was 18. It is fortunate for him that he was conceived before Roe v. Wade. He could be a "poster child" for the pro-life cause if only God would change his heart.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:47 PM By Anne T.
Servant's Heart, no I am not. One of the candidates lived in a box and was tortured for fighting for this country and the other cannot even defend a child who has survived an abortion.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:02 PM By John70
Kmiec is rolling the dice with Obama,he is looking for a seat on the Supreme Court himself should the "street hustler", oh!, pardon me, I meant "community organizer" succede in fooling enough people.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:35 PM By JLS
Kmiek is practicing the traditional rhetorical art aka the "forked tongue". One time contender, Mario Cuomo, tried to run the same deceit on the faculty and students at Notre Dame Law School, and blew it. I was working for a pro-life organization at the time, and pointed the "two sides of his mouth" rant immediately ... of course my bosses were employees of the Bishops and could not grasp the artifice of New York gubernatorial con artistry. Oh well. But, by the end of a week, the press in general had picked up on it, and had begun to unravel the slick yarn. That stunt cost Cuomo any further involvement in the race for presidential nominee, and he faded from national politics.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:48 PM By RichG
Yet another CINO (Catholic in name only), supporting the killing of the unborn. Another win for the "Killer Katholics"
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:13 PM By Eileen
Eric, This is how my logic squares with Church Teaching.You say that change does not happen overnight? When Catholics responded with outrage, the USCCB's consciences changed overnight on their glowing and supportive ratings for Brokeback Mountain. We need to pray for courageous and faithful Bishops who will really help Catholics to form a proper conscience, regardless of the political happenings of the day. The hierarchical goal of the hierarchy should be the reforming of misguided consciences such as Doug Kmiec's. Faithful Bishops are doing just that!
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:14 PM By frcd
Obama's pro-abortion rules him out, AND McCain's pro-embryonic destruction rules him out. I am really devastated that so many who spoke of the "5 non-negotiables" in 2004 are now supporting McCain.
This, in my opinion, is the "tyranny of relativism:" thinking of McCain as a "good" or a "lesser evil" when he is not pro-life, regardless of his rhetoric. Both candidates are clearly wrong.
|
Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:44 PM By =Ed Peffer
Catholics are unaware their Catholic press has chosen to never mention Humanae Vitae. Its Biblical 40th was July 25, 1968-2008, and advised what we call NFP, natural fertility awareness --near zero divorces, zero abortions. It's free on the Web. Popes Paul VI thru Benedict 100% for it.
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 5:27 AM By frrapper
Sadly, there are lots of Catholics like Mr. Kmiec. "Straight the gate and narrow the way that leads to eternal life, and few there be that find it"
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 7:54 AM By K. Miller
There is a vey strange psychological dynamic that is set up when one comes out publicly for a candidate very early on. Rarely does any further information sway that person and they become invested in defending their original decision.
It makes no earthly difference to Pofessor Kmiec that Obama could not bring himself to support the 'born alive infant protection act', nor that he lied about it when found out. It makes no difference that it is pro-life people who open pregnancy centers, support Project Gabriel, open maternity homes and help poor women in crisis pregnancies, NOT Obama's community organizers, or Planned Parenthood.
Professor made up his mind early, on God has the power to change that, let us pray.
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 8:27 AM By The original Frank
Hi Anne, with regard to "responsibile" sexual behavior: We are all aware of celebrities and acquaintances who had all the facts and resources yet behaved irresponsibly, with disasterous results. The point is that growing up in a repressive society (emphasizing sin and denial) makes this behavior even MORE likely. People in open, education-centric cultures which inspire social responsibility and personal empowerment feel peer pressure to behave responsibly. No country has zero abortions but western Europeans have proven the Obama-style approach (education and inspiration) is way more effective than the authoritarian approach. As for contraceptive failure, human behavior is the dominant failure mechanism for all contraceptive methods, especially abstinence.
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 12:12 PM By Marianne B
Doug Kmiec is a true hypocrite, as is Nancy Pelosi. The
idea of Obama winning the Presidency is downright frighten-
ing. Any candidate who supports the killing of our babies
as casually as he does (refering to them as a punishment),
indicates the caliber of such people; I could never vote for
any one of them. Please pray - it's in God's hands.
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 2:54 PM By Gabriel Austin
I'm a bit confused here. How is it that abstinence has a high failure rate? If you don't copulate, you don't get preganant. I am reminded of the man whose doctor told him he had syphilis. "I must have gotten it from a public toilet" he said. "It's a hell of a place to take a girl" said the doctor.
I did GOOGLE sexual education and abortion. Results are that there are close correspondences. It seems like common sense. If a boy and girl get into the habit of openly discussing intercourse, they are more liable to do it.
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 3:10 PM By Gerard
Perhaps there is a career move in mind here?
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 3:49 PM By The original Frank
Gabriel: I didn't write that abstinence has a high failure rate. I wrote that human behavior is the dominant failure mechanism for all contraceptive methods. In the case of abstinence, it is the ONLY failure mechanism.
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 5:37 PM By Fr. M.P.
the original Frank, Jesus said the Truth will set you free. Truth includes the truth about sin, and whatever guilt occurs is supposed to occur from sin. That's what consciences are for. Only the modernist Catholic or pagan mindset says that following the truth of the faith is repressive. Education as to right and wrong is needed, not education on how to do wrong with so-called "protection." Of course Obama-ites will happily kill the result in case "protection" fails. That is what you want?
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 6:51 PM By lgroen
please don't call yourself Catholic if you do no abide by the tenents of our faith. It is an insult Mr. Kmiec
|
Posted Friday, September 05, 2008 11:28 PM By John
Parents want 'better' for their children-for them not to experience many of their own hardships. How do Obama's daughters feel knowing that they were punishment for his actions? It's a good thing he didn't have to decide on their fate as obviously it was his wife's choice-he has no responsibility at all.
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 9:51 AM By Frank Kelly
In 1979, I busted up a NARAL teach-in at CUA's law school and closed it down. at the urging of a national pro-life leader who pleaded with the Dean of the Law School and the President to cancel it and they would not do so.
CUA refuses to permit the military to recruit at the Law School because of DOD's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 12:02 PM By JLS
Cheers to Frank Kelly. Six years later, in '85, as a new Catholic I took a seminary level course at CUA. Most of the students were seminarians well into the process towards ordination. There were at least six of them that did not behave like adult men. Several were obvious homosexuals. There were two beautiful looking senior women, who also seemed inordinately attached, and afraid of men. It is not a "holy" type game there, not what I found. At a big party at Theological College, across the street, in the dorm areas where seminarians from all over the nation resided, what I witnessed was rife with silly and immature young and middle aged males. One of the seminarians I conversed with had to assert his virtue by proclaiming himself a man ... "I am a man", he told me ... and he said this because he could see my astonishment at the charades of some of these seminarians. Then the next year I toured a big weekend vocations fair at the Shrine ... I was dismayed at the odd characters ... a real let down, having been Catholic for only seven years. It was more like a spiritual carnival of the more infamous vices expressing themselves in these people. It was like they all lived in some secretive world; how it was conjured up, by whom, and for how long ought to begin spilling into the public view within the next ten or fifteen years, is my guess. The sooner this age's "fleshpot" will boil over, the better. Or maybe some holy heros and heroines will rise up and throw the whole mess on the garbage dump, so the Church can move on to more noble and charitable matters.
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 12:49 PM By John F. Maguire
Although Governor Sarah Palin is certainly a sincere member of Feminists for Life, her vice-presidential candidacy, in effect, obfuscates the Republican Party's actual position on _Roe v. Wade_. Here, I submit, is, in brief, the real story. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in _Roe v. Wade_, jettisoned the legal protection afforded pre-born infants by all fifty states of the Union, however variously or deficiently afforded. In response, there has been a movement in the Republican Party to return the question of abortion back to the states--on the supposition, however, that the states already possess a right to withdraw legal protection from pre-born infants on a thumbs-up, thumbs-down basis. In this back-to-the-states policy; in this apparently anti-_Roe_ posture, the Republican Party nonetheless subscribes to an aspect of the *defense* of _Roe_ : namely, the Supreme Court's supposition that abortion was a common-law liberty at the time of the Constitution's adoption. From the false supposition of an originary right-to-abort, the conclusion was drawn by both political parties that those restrictions on abortion that had been imposed by the fifty states, pre-_Roe v. Wade_, were no more than statutory derogations of a common-law liberty, i.e., the common-law liberty to resort to deliberately procured abortion. But the truth is that the Court was mistaken in the first place regarding abortion at the time of the Constitution's adoption. As the distinguished legal scholar Joseph W. Dellapena has demonstrated in his treatise _Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History_, no such common-law liberty to abort obtained at the time of the Founding. Indeed, for centuries, pre-born infants had been protected by law against assaults on their physical integrity. Why, then, the Republican Party should follow the Democratic Party in supposing otherwise, belongs to the ugly *arcana* of our current politics.
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:52 PM By John F. Maguire
Roughly defined and roughly estimated, what is called "the Catholic vote" appears--at the present moment--to be as much prone to end up being split down-the-middle, come November, as the vote of the voting population in general. At the same time, this Catholic vote, per force, is an alienated vote--alienated in a double sense. In the first place, no Catholic can vote for a candidate *because* that candidate is an abortocrat, that is, *because* that candidate opposes the inclusion of preborn infants within the compass of rights attendant to humanity itself. In the second place, no Catholic can ignore how advocates for recognition of the rights of preborn infants have been treated by both political parties--I refer to the brutal exclusion of Democratic pro-life candidates for office by their own Party, but also to the cynical co-optation of pro-life support by the Republican Party. In this dire circumstance, the cognizant Catholic voter--to be sure, under protest on account of this same circumstance--nonetheless remains free to vote his or her (informed) conscience, bearing in mind, as always, the distinction between an upright conscience (the conscience that is conscientious), on the one hand, and the veridical conscience (the conscience that is both upright and true), on the other hand.
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 8:54 PM By JLS
The GOP has had the options to toss Roe v Wade out, and has refused. By set aside, packing the court or impeaching justices, it could have rid the country of Roe v Wade. But it has no intention of doing so. In effect what the Republican party does is shoehorn the nation into the leg irons of the Democrats. Were I only a betting man, I'd see almost sure odds on this, that Mr Maguire will liken the Republicans to the Democrats in terms of the abortion issue. I agree. But nevertheless, it is not a valid basis for anyone, say for example Mr. Kmiec, for advocating Obama. Going further, I would also add that it is neither a valid basis for advocating for McCain, either. Catholics have the numbers to unite in a third party and throw out the present government party (DP and GOP). What is the problem with such unity? Don't tell me it's tax exemption! It could not be fear, either. Then what is it? Just recently, the previous Pope united the Church in Poland and tossed out the Communist slave masters. This proves that it can be done. Oh wait, the main obstacle faced by the Poles was different; it was simple brutality, and not the far more frightful thing we have in the west, such as opulant pleasure institutionalized by the voters. How hard it is for a civilization to give up its beloved mistress, who looks so good, feels so good, makes such great promises, looses ever more buttons on her scarlet gown! By comparison, the Poles and John Paul II had it easy in defeating the brute that tyrannized them.
|
Posted Sunday, September 07, 2008 1:46 PM By JLS
Could it be possible that no matter who is elected, it won't lessen abortion now or anytime soon? If so, then it can be seen that perhaps there is wisdom in the Church voting half and half for the two parties ... to split the power of government. If both parties fall way short of Catholic doctrine, then the more unity of these parties, the more power the government can wield over the population. After all, a secular government is not disciplined as Christ commands His Church to discipline the nations. Thus, a secular government is really not an ally ... now the members of the government might or might not be people of good will ... likely a mix, but maybe not. Who can highlight one single national political figure who lives the Catholic Magisterium 100%? What about one who lives and advocates the major Catholic teachings 100%? I'm not aware of any single major politician who does this. Maybe it is not possible at this time. Maybe the nation has descended into such revelry displeasing to God, that we are paying the price by having worse and worse leaders.
|
Posted Sunday, September 07, 2008 3:59 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: "In effect," you write, "what the Republican party does is shoehorn the nation into the leg irons of the Democrats." Just so. On the other hand, JLS, I still see you as missing Professor Kmiec's point--a point, by the way, made relatively independently of Kmiec's own advocacy (it is of course an advocacy under protest) in favor of Obama's candidacy. That point, as quoted by BTJ at CCD Sept. 4: 10:53, is this: that from within the perspective of constitutional law, simply "toss[ing] _Roe v. Wade_ out" is no solution since, as Professor Kmiec points out,
"overturning _Roe_ simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro-abortion." So, JLS, if the Republican Party insists on shoehorning itself into the leg irons of the Democratic Party, then even if you otherwise disagree with Professor Kmiec's endorsement of Obama (again, an endorsement proffered under protest), you can understand why the focus of the politico-juridical struggle finds its center in the leadership of the Democratic rather than Republican Party. Win or lose, it would remain a tragic circumstance for Senator Barack Obama--and for the nation as whole--were this Harvard Law School graduate to suppose that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, still somehow left the Supreme Court's 1857 _ Dred Scott v. Sanford_ decision (partially) intact. In _Dred Scott_, the Court, in effect, left the matter of African American (legal) personeity to slave-state jurisdictions, as today the Republican Party wants to leave the matter of the legal personeity of pre-born infants to state jurisdictions in general.
|
Posted Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:28 PM By JLS
The "Knight in Shining Armor" motif! Man has dreamed of taming the beast, ever since the horse was first saddled. The nefarious cynics made a movie casting this motif in a humiliating light ... "Brokeback" whatever, about two idiots who cannot even shepherd sheep effectively without throwing themselves on a Hellheap. In former times, man has had occasional success in the noble endeavor of carrying out God's command to rule creation. We find St George killing the dragon, St Patrick ridding the Emerald Isle of vipers, and on and on. In our current age, man has become disoriented and has the strange and futile belief that the likes of our current rulers are good, that the beast is under control. The Church proclaims otherwise, and Her faithful seek any way they can to right the wrong, and restore some of God's will to society in general. Maybe Mr. Kmiec will succeed, but it will be heroic to say the least. Maybe he'd rise to the high bench ... but so what? It's stacked against the culture of life. Congress had sixteen years of Republicans to correct the pro-abortion law. As for states' rights, they are history: To wit, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was canned by the feds for insisting on having the Ten Commandments proclaimed in his courtroom! The myth of states' rights continues, however. It is amazing that the public even still believes in national rights, which are being steadily handed over to international governments. No, there are no more states' rights ... none that are important. It is a dead issue. In the days of the U.S. Constitution those who had the money and power were localized due to the nature of technology at that time ... but today, money and power have risen to prominence well beyond individual states, and are proceeding rapidly beyond the jurisdiction of this nation. Abortion will stay regardless of which party has the greater grip on the reins of the beast. The only hope is the Church opening Her holy mouth.
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 8:22 AM By JLS
Yet what also becomes more clear is that the position in question here has a name, "pro-choice". The pro-choice position claims not to be pro-abortion, but to allow choice in the matter. But God commands His Church to "disciple the nations". Does anyone see the disparity between these two interacting concepts? The hidden aspect of the pro-choice position is this: Pro-choice is essentially the advocation of free will. Are these the same? The pro-choicers presume so; however, here is the important and critical difference. Free will is part of human nature and not something that can be legislated. But the entire movement of pro-choice proceeds on the assumption that free will is in danger ... it is not, since we have it no matter what. It is an extremely subtle point, and one extremely difficult for many people to discern ... there is an entire theology on free will, and this is one of the major issues in human reason. This is one of the problems allowing abortion to continue. "My people suffer for lack of knowledge", says God through Scripture. Continued:
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 3:27 PM By Faithabove
The Catechism of Catholic Voters by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD
Tells us it is a mortal sin to vote Quote “ To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.”
When I face God in Judgement I will not have to face all those who were aborted during the Obama reign because I will not have helped elect a man or men who have little regard for life. I know I speak for millions Catholics who believe the same.
Obama or any pro choice politician is not worth the price of our souls to burn mortally.
I might not have better economic future with any other party and actually might feel a severe depression in the future but hey I can wake up with a smile and live with the fact I made the right decision and will be smiled upon by our Almighty .
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 8:11 PM By John F. Maguire
In point of fact and contrary to "Faithabove" (above), Fr. Stephen F. Torraco called his 7-page 2002 document _A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters_, not _The Catechism of Catholic Voters_. This document, of course, is not a catechism at all, properly speaking; but that's a minor point. The major point is that Fr. Torraco holds a view diametrically opposite to the view imputed to him by "Faithabove".
"Faithabove" quotes Fr. Torraco to the effect that "To vote for such a candidate [i.e., a pro-abortion candidate] even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the evil of abortion. If the voter knows this, then the voter sins mortally." Does that mean that for Fr. Torraco a vote for a pro-abortion politician is necessarily a sin, as "Faithabove" wants us to think? The answer, it turns out, is No. "Faithabove", we discover, has left out Fr. Torraco's basic point. Quote: "Even in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let [lesser] damage in this regard), a CANDIDATE [emphasis mine] that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic's vote"--though, as Fr. Torraco takes care to add, "a VOTER [emphasis mine]...may vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion...." In short, Fr. Torraco holds the opposite of what "Faithabove" implies that he holds.
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 9:25 PM By JLS
Here we find an argument stacking up odds against faith. The Church is faith, not "most likely", or "least likely". Faith means to tell the world what morality is and not cavil to immorality. Faith means to stand up and say what is good and reveal what is evil. These fox like plans to enter the henhouse make no sense. What we need in this parable is the farmer and his hounds to guard the henhouse, not to sit back and watch the foxes explain their virtues on the TV set.
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 9:45 PM By onesoul
Kmiec is a phony. We all know that Obama is a planned parenthood boy. He has a 100% pro planned parenthood pro abortion rating ( even above hillary clinton) I do not CARE WHO this dude is, he is a phony and a lier, and the "Catholic voters" will not be duped by this "stoodge"
|
Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 5:13 AM By Fr. M.P.
How will someone with Obama's character limit abortion? One does not want a homosexual predator as a priest for obvious reasons. Yet many do not care about Obama's character when it comes to unborn life, or situations driving the need for Sarah's law. Somehow - miraculously perhaps - he will "improve" the situation? How?
|
Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:54 AM By Faithabove
Mr. Maguire, nice dissembling in the above Quote: "Even in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let [lesser] damage in this regard ” Clearly we do not have all pro choice candidates this election. Clearly we do have candidates running with a pro life agenda. Hence therefore voting for Obama is not a legitimate choice. The above quote you references is only if we have no choices.
|
Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:57 PM By John F. Maguire
In my post at CCD Sept. 8: 8:11, I show (I hope) that Fr. Stephen Torraco does NOT hold that a vote for an abortocratic candidate is necessarily a sin. Where, as in the present electoral context, both candidates have disqualified themselves from receiving a Catholic voter's vote, the Catholic vote as a whole becomes an alienated vote, in the sense traditionally recognized in moral theology.
Now although Fr. Torraco does not use the term *alienation*, he makes the same point. Where both candidates have "disqualfied" themselves "from receiving a Catholic's vote," he writes, then the Catholic voter should take these candidates' self-inflicted disqualifications into account in his or her voting decision. The question then becomes: Where both candidates have disqualified themselves from a Catholic's vote; where both candidates have alienated the vote of Catholics and others, is a Catholic or non-Catholic voter required to abstain from voting? Fr. Torraco's answer is No. Like elected officials in the same situation, "a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other [grave] moral evil at issue."
|
Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:45 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Faithabove: I hardly thinking my quoting the very quote you leave out--and by leaving out, create the false impression that Fr. Toracco holds that voting for an abortocratic candidate is necessarily a sin--is dissembling on my part. Neither candidate for the Presidency--and we have no effective choice but one or the other--recognizes the pre-born infant as a person under the Constitution. Senator Obama defends _Roe v. Wade_ in that non-recogntion; Senator McCain appears to want to return the matter to state jurisdictions, all the while retaining _Roe v. Wade's_ non-recognition of pre-born infants as persons under the Constitution, with the upshot that the states would, in consequence, proceed as if they were free to arbitrate the lives of pre-born infants, thumbs-up, thumbs-down. In this circumstance, which is our present circumstance, the electoral situation is tantamount to the "voter alienation" situation addressed by the Catholic moral tradition. Therefore, Fr. Torraco's analysis (not the analysis you impute to him but his real analysis) applies: Like political officer holders, per John Paul II, "a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other [grave] moral evil at issue."
|
Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:31 PM By JLS
"Neither candidate for the presidency" ... The word "neither" implies "two". I just do not understand why we do not consider the pro-life candidate, Chuck Baldwin, on the Constitution Party ticket. No one has engaged my point that Catholics need to give up their vain attitude that they can vote any way they wish. The Church needs to unite on primary issues ... The number of Catholic voters is significant and can rule the election ... if only they'd all be Catholic; to wit; "one" holy catholic and apostolic Church ... "one"; so why is the Catholic vote split? Is it because of dishonesty, faithlessness, betrayal? What?
|
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:55 AM By JLS
Mr. Kmiec's argument appears to be lost, now that Cardinal George has said that Catholic social teaching is principled upon protecting the unborn children. I do expect to see some further word wizardry in defense of social bureaucracies that feed at the expense caused by abortion. But with the amazing ramping up by the top hierarchs of our Church the relative position of abortion involvement, that it won't be far off before we see some significant excommunications.
|
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:01 PM By Jan Wnek
Why vote at all? Why just NOT vote? Seems to be the best possible Christian response to a rigged, non-Christian, exercise....
Pace e Bene,
Jan
|
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:34 PM By Faithabove
John First, when asked by Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Forum when a
fetus becomes a person, Sen. McCain replied, "At the moment of
conception." That's pretty clear that he "recognizes the preborn infant
as a person under the Constitution." Now if you come back and say,
"Embryonic stem cell research," he has said he is rethinking that (and
his comments to Warren are evidence of this). That is more than you can
say for Obama who has 1) consistently supported such research and has
said he will not reconsider and b) now "regrets" voting to keep Terri
Schiavo alive. McCain, on the other hand, has not repudiated his vote on
that matter.
John, the distinction on Roe between the two candidates is this: Obama
wants Roe upheld, McCain wants it overturned. That would mean, ipso
facto, that it would be returned to the states. What happens after that
is anyone's guess, but the first and most important move is to overturn
Roe.
And, yes, the quote you attributed to John Paul II is correct, but there
is also the further consideration that we should vote for the candidate
who do the most good and who has the greatest chance of winning. While
there may be more "pure" candidates out there, we can vote for the
Constitution Party candidate, and proclaim our consciences are pure, and
(if enough of us choose to commit electoral suicide in this fashion) on
November 5, wake up to "President-elect Obama."
Politics is a game of inches, not endzone to endzone runs. You rarely
score on the first rush or pass. Sometimes you get a half a loaf,
sometimes only a crumb, but the point is you keep working away at the
margins. McCain enables us to do that. He at least gives us a
sympathetic ear, and, with Palin as his Veep, possibly more than that.
Obama gives us nothing. Nada. Zilch.
So why are we even having this conversation. The path before us is
clear. To go back and forth with ruminations of how many angels dance on
the head of a pin is idiotic. Get on the McCain Train and let's move on
already. If you want to keep arguing the point, John, have a nice life,
and I pray that you don't have to wake up to the news that Obama has won
because
|
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:26 PM By Pat Goltz
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Hitler did a lot of wonderful things for Germany, and yet we see him as evil, and rightly so. Obama is evil with respect to the unborn. What makes anybody think he REALLY means it when he says he's concerned about poverty and the like? I certainly don't. He wants to tax the middle class into poverty. A wrong fundamental worldview means wrong thinking, and wrong action. A baby who is brutally killed will never experience poverty. So we have just reduced poverty. Right? As a Lutheran, I see these Catholics who forget that life trumps wealth or poverty as a joke. They are a very poor witness to the idea that there is anything right about the Catholic church. If people cannot even form their own consciences under Catholic teaching, then what? Most Catholics who vote Democratic really want to plunder the taxpayer and force people to be charitable, rather than reaching out to the impoverished. I don't buy the argument that it's concern for the poor that motivates the government to plunder in the name of charity. WHO helps the needy? Volunteers who staff crisis pregnancy agencies. We need to stop with all the corrupt thinking, starting with the idea that the right to life can ever be compromised. Forming consciences? That's just a buzzword for rationalization. And it is clear that people who defend life are not indifferent to other important issues, because we sacrifice our OWN resources to help. Who does this? People who want abortion outlawed, not people who want political power. Having a pro-life president helps shape the culture of life. He can find many ways to do things that encourage this. Obama is evil. All of his concern is just a smokescreen.
|
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:02 PM By JLS
Faithlove, it makes no difference if McCain wants to overturn Roe v Wade; it makes no difference if his running mate, another means of expressing the GOP hype that they champion pro-life Because it's not going to happen by either the Dems or the GOP in the White House. The GOP has too many of you by the suspenders with its delusional "feel good" dreamland nonsense. One more time: They had the Congress for sixteen years and the White House for 12 AND NO CHANGE. Cardinal George has just proclaimed that Catholic social teaching is principled upon protecting unborn babies ... you have no excuse at all now.
|
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:06 PM By JLS
You, Pat, need to get a better understanding of how the US government works. Too many people think the president is superman ... why? Put anyone you choose in the Whitehouse and abortion will keep on keeping on. What is so hard to understand about this?
|
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:00 AM By Verkola
Reply to Pat Goltz: You profess to be a Lutheran, but your rhetoric ("Obama is evil") is deeply flawed. Lutheran theology--akin on this point to Catholic theology--includes a theology of creation according to which the good God, as Creator, brings into being, and sustains in being *eo instante*, human persons as His beloved creatures. What is evil in creatures therefore can never be our very being; rather, what is evil in creatures is our will (not as such but) insofar as our will is directed against the good and the good God. In all strictness, then, we can call *moral evil* only the lack of due good in a will freely turned against the good. Ontologically, Mr. Glotz, we cannot call persons evil. Even Satan, whom God wills into being here and now, is good as: willed into being by God; what is evil in Satan is his wilful oppostion to the good and the good God. All of which is to say that your rhetoric ("Obama is evil") is more Manichean than anything else. It is certainly neither Lutheran nor Catholic.
|
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:15 AM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Faithabove: Thank you for your post and for your recognizing that the quotation from Pope John Paul II is correct, as this quote subtends Fr. Toracco's position and mine that a vote for an abortocratic politician doesn't necessarily partake in the intrinsic evil that is abortion. But let me ask you this: Don't you risk dropping a large link of logic when you suppose that because Senator McCain has acknowledged (A) that human life begins at conception, he necessarily acknowledges (B) that the preborn infant is a person under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution? ~ That Senator McCain finally see his way to acknowledging (B) would be a splendid thing, as would be Senator Obama doing the same. To date, however, neither candidate holds to (B). I think the defenders of the rights of pre-born infants--in both parties--should be more militant on this point. By contrast, your forlorn, resigned approach ("[McCain] at least gives us a sympathetic ear, and with Palin as his Veep, possibly more than that"), is, at least arguably, inadequate to the hour, even were Palin to recognize the personeity of the pre-born infant as within the purview of the Constitution. To date, there's no evidence she's done that. In this context, Douglas Kmiec has every right to try a different way--in keeping of course with the Catholic tradition of the "alienated counselor" and the guidance afforded by Pope John Paul II.
|
Posted Friday, September 12, 2008 3:01 PM By Faithabove
John , Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. and Bishop James D. Conley of Denver
Have summed up it up the best their quote on Sept 9th “American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their "pro-choice" beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades. If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us - from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews - fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.” John do you believe this is where Obama will help us as Catholics and Christians to overturn Roe? Gone are the days my friend where a liberal Catholic can play both sides of the fence and think there is no recourse. Abortion and those who want to stand by its evil side this in not break only in Catholic Faith but the biggest part is the break with natural law. (Archbishop Chaput defines that compelling moral
consideration as something that would enable you to stand before those
aborted babies and say, "I absolutely had to vote for this pro-abort
because of this, and I'm sorry you had to lose your life as a result of
this person being elected, but I really had no other choice.")
Gives us alot of good moral thinking to do before you walk in the booth this election season.
|
Posted Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:48 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Faithabove: Where with Fr. Stephen Torraco, you left out a quote that contradicts the very meaning of the position you imputed to Fr. Torraco (this imputed position was yours rather than Fr. Torraco's), now with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, you proceed to misquote the estimable Denver prelate, although it is certainly true--as you suggest--that Archbishop Chaput has made a point of putting us in mind of the (Suarezian) thesis that the general resurrection of the dead includes the particular resurrection of pre-born infants. It is true, too, that Denver's Franciscan Archbishop has invited us, when we vote, to vote with these infants in mind, that is, with these infants envisioned by us as the eschatological addressees of our vote. Archbishop Chaput, however, did not intend this invitation to be used as a substitute for hard thinking, including hard thinking on the question of proportionate reason.
|
Posted Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:20 AM By Pat Goltz
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Hitler did a lot of wonderful things for Germany, and yet we see him as evil, and rightly so. Obama is evil with respect to the unborn. What makes anybody think he REALLY means it when he says he's concerned about poverty and the like? I certainly don't. He wants to tax the middle class into poverty. A wrong fundamental worldview means wrong thinking, and wrong action. A baby who is brutally killed will never experience poverty. So we have just reduced poverty. Right? As a Lutheran, I see these Catholics who forget that life trumps wealth or poverty as a joke. They are a very poor witness to the idea that there is anything right about the Catholic church. If people cannot even form their own consciences under Catholic teaching, then what? Most Catholics who vote Democratic really want to plunder the taxpayer and force people to be charitable, rather than reaching out to the impoverished. I don't buy the argument that it's concern for the poor that motivates the government to plunder in the name of charity. WHO helps the needy? Volunteers who staff crisis pregnancy agencies. We need to stop with all the corrupt thinking, starting with the idea that the right to life can ever be compromised. Forming consciences? That's just a buzzword for rationalization. And it is clear that people who defend life are not indifferent to other important issues, because we sacrifice our OWN resources to help. Who does this? People who want abortion outlawed, not people who want political power. Having a pro-life president helps shape the culture of life. He can find many ways to do things that encourage this. Obama is evil. All of his concern is just a smokescreen.
|
Posted Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:33 AM By Pat Goltz
to Verkola, I see a basic contradiction in your position. If Obama has chosen evil (and he has), then he is wicked, and God certainly talks about the wicked in the Bible, and how they are condemned. I don't think you are in a position to comment on Lutheranism; I don't see a lot of similarity with Catholicism on such points. Hopefully, you pay more attention to fine points with respect to your arguments, although you misspelled my name and jumped to the erroneous conclusion I'm male. While Obama was made in God's image, he, like others, has been corrupted by sin, and failing to embrace Jesus' salvation leaves him in the condemned state. The fact that he associates with haters is evidence enough that he is not right with God. I notice that you carefully did NOT state that Hitler, whom I also mention, is not evil. That argument would hardly fly among Christians anywhere. There are only two possibilities: reconciliation or condemnation. Obama and Hitler chose to reject the path of reconciliation. So I reject your analysis. Perhaps your comment gives me more insight into why orthodox Lutherans and Catholics have no common ground on this issue, and for that I thank you.
|
Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 11:35 AM By Gera Schmidt .com
Good Grief!! This is just another example of how allowing Catholic Pro-Abort politicians "Their Way" to play & kiss footsie with the Devil has gone on to deprave men such as this. What a pathetic jagged pill his is! All Christians of all Faiths see this sort of Smutty Gutter Slide Guy as a reflection on all Catholics and I for one DEMAND EX-COMMUNICATION of the dolts! Got It? OVER IT!!!!
|
Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:29 AM By Verkola
In response to Pat Goltz: Martin Luther, for all his heterodoxy, does not believe that it is metaphysically possible for God to create an evil person (1) because God is Goodness itself and can do no evil, and (2) because evil is a lack of due good and therefore a deficiency in being, never being itself. Human wickedness does not alter this metaphysical situation. ~ As you have gathered, I am trying here to refute your assertion that "orthodox Lutherans and Catholics have no common ground on this issue" even though I as a Catholic would note that when it comes to the created order--including the order of created persons--Luther exaggerated the effects of the Fall, as perhaps have you. Your exclamation ("Forming conciences? That's just a buzzword for rationalization"), suggests a dire view of human nature, quite as if the Fall devastated human nature and conscience-formation rather than only weakened them.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|