Pushing the Envelope of Dissent

Now that the general election season is underway, the purveyors of ethical compromise are already hard at work. Doug Kmiec Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University has begun a major offensive to malform the consciences of Catholics in America into thinking that it is morally acceptable to vote for Barack Obama. What is more disconcerting is that Catholic Online is giving him free reign to do so.

Mr. Kmiec was recently denied communion for his roof-top endorsement of Obama. Unfortunatley, it seems that the priest who did so may not have followed canonical procedure. Follow the comments from the last link for an interesting discussion on whether the likes of Kmiec should be denied. Archbishop Burke’s paper is the must-read on this matter.

Aside from Kmiec’s intellectual rationalization by which he convinces himself that the man with the worst pro-life record imaginable is the best pro-life candidate, the typical gooey, leg-thrilling and nauseating enthusiasm for Obama just makes this latest puree of secularist pablum in Catholic sauce too much for my taste buds–and my stomach.

But since misery loves company, I set the table for the readers of MaryVictrix:

Daily Kos Meet Catholic Online

Can Obama deliver on his promise to build bridges and unbuild walls? It is likely unusual for the progressive blog, Daily Kos, to be cross-referenced on Catholic Online, but here is a quotation from a recent blog entry at that liberal site:

“This has been Barack’s pattern through his entire campaign. He has spoken truth to privilege. He’s made everyone uncomfortable, and that’s a good thing. He’s taken hold of some very big skeletons in the American closet, and shaken them until they rattled. He’s thrown the windows open and let in some air.”

The terminology of opening windows is, of course, reminiscent of John XXIII’s description of the animating purpose of the Second Vatican Council, when the Catholic Church, itself, was ecumenically unbuilding walls between itself and other faith communities.

My heavens! The comparison between Obama and John XXIII is Hegelian. “Let’s take the pope in one hand and the Planned Parenthood Poster Boy in the other, and whamo! the great political messiah!” Further indication of this mindset is the “Daily Kos Meets Catholic Online” header. “Yes, yes, lets take the hate-mongering cyber-pit for the bottom-feeders on the left and come up with a brave new synthesis by integrating it with Catholic thought. This is so far out it merits only sarcasm.”

Catholic instruction provides that “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

That obviously would preclude a Catholic voter from supporting a referendum providing public funding for abortion, but what about a candidate like Obama who is not pro-abortion, but of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor?

Catholic voters in this circumstance are asked to consider what other social goods Obama represents and whether they can honestly and openly say that they are supporting him for that reason and not his stand on abortion.

The American bishops have put it this way: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion. . ., if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, 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.”

Make no mistake about it, whatever his intentions, Kmiec’s argument, if successful, will make it virtually impossible to convince anyone that there is any moral imperative to protect innocent unborn babies. Obama is not pro-abortion? Then who is? This is shameless beyond comprehension. The man uses the very rhetoric of Planned Parenthood.

Kmiec entitled the article from which I have taken the above quotes “The Politics of Apostasy,” as though people like myself have some undying loyalty to the Republican Party, and the real reason we believe people like him should be told not to receive communion is because we are politically motivated.

His article would have been better entitled “The Theology of Ethical Compromise for Political Purposes.” Kmiec is the one with misguided loyalties. He is suffering from the “Obama is Messiah” delusion. I pray there is a cure.

10 thoughts on “Pushing the Envelope of Dissent

  1. How disappointing about catholic.org is giving him a podium. It is good to see, though, Fr. Ignatius’ homily on voting for pro-abortion politicians from this morning linked from the same page as this article!

  2. It sounds like Kmiec holds the Catholic pro-life belief but has somehow come to the conclusion that O’Bama is *more* pro-life than McCain. We really are in a pickle for this fall. I will not vote for O’Bama, but can I in good conscience vote for McCain? No.

    Anyway, what confused me was Kmiec’s assertion that even if Roe were overturned, this would have no impact on the abortions. Therefore, we can conclude (according to Kmiec) that voting with this in mind solely is foolish. Eh??? If we make abortion illegal, how can this NOT help? I have no idea what the man is saying here. Catholics will rationalize that as long as they aren’t voting for the person BECAUSE of his pro-abortion stance, then we can vote for whomever we wish. I believe the Catholic Bishops need to get far MORE specific here. There’s too much room for misinterpretation. To me, end abortion and then you can tell me all about your fiscal policies, foreign policies, yadda yadda yadda. Period.

  3. Doug Kmiec:

    Catholic instruction provides that “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

    That obviously would preclude a Catholic voter from supporting a referendum providing public funding for abortion, but what about a candidate like Obama who is not pro-abortion, but of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor?

    Mr. Kmiec has obviously adopted the view that one can be pro-life and support the *right* to abortion (while not supporting abortion itself, of course.) You know, it’s the familiar, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but this question is best left with a woman and her doctor” argument. His position rates very well with NARAL.

    Mr. Kmiec is pro-choice. Of course he supports Obama.

  4. Sorry Father, I skimmed your post and read the links. I didn’t realize that I re-posted the same quotes that you did til after I submitted…

  5. Steve,

    I absolve thee.

    Kmiec would be a great spokesman for Planned Parenthood. . . Er, correction. He is a great spokesman for Planned Parenthood.

    Jen,

    I R v W were overturned it would not make abortion illegal, it would just not require legislators to consider it a constitutional right. States would then have the right to make their own laws governing abortion.

    The fact is, however, abortion was legalized across all fifty states by the judicial fiat of the Supreme Court, and since then that spirit of judicial activism has made it a mountain climb to pass any pro-life laws that aren’t then struck down as unconstitutional. Every pro-lifer knows that judicial activism needs to end before steady progress can be made. Reversing R v W would be a strike to the heart of the pro-abortion demon. Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law. He knows this.

    Most politicians are not going to place themselves at the extreme of the issue by supporting a federal constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. But they will be more likely to do so, if there is watershed to change the direction of judicial philosophy regarding abortion. In any case, if R v W goes at least some states will make abortion illegal and programs to support unwed mothers will, I think, gain much more support. In the long run this surely will be a major step toward decreasing the number of abortions.

  6. Ave Maria!

    A bit off topic, but I was wondering if you received my email Father? I sent it to the email address specified in the MaryVictrix contact page, but I wasn’t sure if you received it. Thanks!

  7. Pingback: More Pushing « Mary Victrix

  8. God bless you for identifying DOUG KMIEC for what he is. The pro-death anti-culture has seeped down so low over the decades that it must be in the drinking water in California, the left coast.

    What is the rhetorical gesture DOUG KMIEC makes in the opening of his execrable piece but a cheap and easy Pontius Pilate ‘Quid est veritas?”

    The slaughter of the innocents may be upon his head.

    Pray for him.

  9. Pingback: Meet Your New “Chief Justice” « Mary Victrix

  10. Pingback: Courious Kmiec « Mary Victrix

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s