Are “pro-life” “Catholic” Obama supporters and John Ridely suffering from the same syndrome? Please, let there be a cure.
Brian Brown from the National Organization for Marriage has directed me to a new blog which is well worth your attention. It is called Moral Accountability and is the work of Robert P. George and his colleagues. There Matthew J. Franck critiques the latest mental gymnastics of Doug Kmiec.
Writing in Commonweal, Kmiec complains that he has been vilified by the right without justification, that basically all the opposition to his support of Obama has taken the form of name calling. Here’s a taste:
Noting my continued good health, the editors of Commonweal invited this essay which I submit even as I acknowledge the wisdom of Sr. Pius’s eighth-grade counsel: “Douglas, just offer it up!” That was good advice; and indeed I have at times considered the blog calumnies hurled at me as penance for occasions when I have put on a bit of a false front. We all want to be perceived as intelligent, kindly, and well considered, and we all occasionally speak too glibly for our own good-as I did, for example, representing Obama on the campaign trail while chastising him for his criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas; or suggesting, out loud and even on camera, that his one-time pledge of support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) during the primary was “boneheaded.” These are not politic statements, but unlike most blog entries, they represent honest, substantive dissent illustrating how it is possible for a person to be capable of admiring both Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas, and of supporting Obama while rejecting legislation that would in any way limit religious freedom or insult the church. (My message to President Obama on FOCA, by the way, will remain what it was to candidate Obama: FOCA runs contrary to the pursuit of the common good.)
Just a couple of things. First off, Mr. Kmiec is dodging when he says that Obama’s support of FOCA consisted of a “one-time pledge.” Senator Obama was cosponsor of the bill which was introduced into the senate April 19, 2007. Then, on January 22, 2008, 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Senator Obama released a statement in which he promised as president to see FOCA passed: Continue reading
Here’s Rick Warren’s defense of his pronouncing the invocation at the presidential inauguration:
I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the Invocation at his historic Inaugural ceremony.
Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America.
The Bible admonishes us to pray for our leaders. I am honored by this opportunity to pray God’s blessing on the office of the President and its current and future inhabitant, asking the Lord to provide wisdom to America’s leaders during this critical time in our nation’s history.
Fair enough. But is the bone we are thrown before the slaughter? What if Obama were to abandon FOCA, after the campaign that he ran with the blessing and adulation of Planned Parenthood? Is such a thing possible?
Adulation and finger-pointing are the order of the day in this post-election period. Everything from the supernatural powers of The One, to the shortcomings of Sarah Palin have been attributed to the success of the Man with No History.
I, for one, would not rule out a preternatural influence. Interestingly enough, Father Rutler came pretty close to connecting Obama to the Antichrist the night before the election. See for yourself. (The Lord of the World is well-worth the read. I have referenced it here before.)
Even so, if I were to have to choose between which one of our enemies had the greatest effect in bringing about the outcome (the world, the flesh or the devil), I would still say it was mostly the flesh, namely, that interior disorder due to original sin that is the constant companion of those who live this side of heaven.
I pointed this fact out in my pre-election homily. In my opinion, this fact’s importance cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening. Catholics Democrats are living in a dream world, and the Republican Party is in shambles because none of us want to face the music. We have lost our chastity and we don’t want it back.
The vast majority of Catholics don’t have the moral fortitude or political will to really be pro-life, because we have been evangelized by the purveyors of lust. We have not been witnesses to Christ and we don’t have the determination to be so, because we have put our trust in the world and what it has to offer.
How many people, even those in the pews, actually believe that fornication is a sin, let alone pornography, masturbation and lustful desires and thoughts? In principle most Catholics do not believe that lust is wrong unless it “hurts” someone else—whatever that means. So how can anyone like this be expected to put aside all their personal opinions and political fears and vote for someone they cannot stand because the Church says that we must vote pro-life?
Five minutes spent watching television will remind us how far from the Catholic vision our country has gone, even if we still remain one of the most religious countries in the world. Even Sarah Palin said she wouldn’t dream of having any more children and supports contraceptive sex education. (Could you imagine what would happen if a vice-president became pregnant during her administration?)
But of course this will largely remain undiscussed in the post mortem, even in conservative circles. Many conservatives will even argue more strenuously that the social cons are a drag on the Party. In part, this is the motivation for the scapegoating of Palin.
We must have our contraception and our dirty little fun. Kids must be “protected” from anything that is not “age appropriate,” that’s true, but we wouldn’t dream of depriving anyone of their “rights,” or even presume to know what’s best for society at large when it comes to matters of sexuality.
I will go a step further and critique the whole “new chastity movement.” I use that term so as not to be construed as disagreeing with the “Theology of the Body” of the late and saintly Pope John Paul II. I agree that that a more positive approach to the teaching of chastity is necessary, and that the insights of the Theology of the Body are important. However, some (notice the emphasis) of the promotion of these insights seem a bit gnostic and disingenuous.
I say gnostic, because it is asserted that this new way has been kept a secret until now, and with the new indoctrination all the old problems of original sin, scrupulosity, prudishness and guilt will be minimized. It is suggested that we will be naked without shame almost to the point of original innocence. Who is kidding who?
I say disingenuous, because there is an underlying cause for the new approach that has nothing to do with a “new revelation.” That underlying cause is simply the fact that the vast majority of Catholics refuse to give up their contraception. Some alternative had to be devised, just as some alternative had to be devised for Catholics who refuse to give up divorce and remarriage.
I believe many use Natural Family Planning for the right reasons. I also believe that many use it as a substitute for contraception, because that is the way it has been promoted and because many of us have lost hope that there is an alternative.
The fact is chastity is not possible without supernatural grace and hope. The only way someone will go into a voting booth and say, “I don’t care how I feel about this election; I will vote pro-life no matter how I feel, until my party takes me seriously,” is when they are willing to exercise the same kind of trust in matters of chastity and family life.
We really don’t want pro-life candidates because we really don’t want to be chaste. We don’t have the moral fortitude and political will because we have not yet humbled ourselves to beg for the grace we need—the grace we really need.
I have no meds to hand out, and I am not a grief counselor. All I have is a good home remedy: prayer and penance.
Here is my homily from the election vigil. It is comprised of three parts: 1) our civil responsibility in voting; 2) the problem we confront; 3) the solution. The first part says nothing that will help us in our present plight, unless we consider that many Catholics still have not learned the lesson of what their obligations are. The second two parts are very much at the heart of what we must do in order to effectively confront cultural and moral pestilence which we face.
Unfortunately, the homily has not been uploaded to a share site so I am not able to embed the video here. If it becomes available I will.
Our crisis is one of sanctity. Be a saint. That is the only way the Antichrist will be defeated.
Now, I am not saying that the Obama is the Antichrist, as he does not fulfill what seems to be characteristics of the Antichrist described in Scripture and the Fathers; however, I do think that he is antichristic by his own camp’s definition. If the Mother Goddess of television can say things like this about Christ and then this about Obama, then, I think it is reasonable to not to mince words on the subject.
Obama’s own disicples are the ones who have chosen to adopt religious language. They may do so with a sense of irony, but in so far as their godlessness will continue to claim the lives of millions in the name of hopeandchange, then the indictment sticks.
Oprah says that “God is a feeling experience, not a believing experience. if your religion is a believing experience–if God for you is still about a belief, then it’s not truly God.” Obama is a feeling experience, not a believing experience. If that were not true then all those who could not even mention one of his practical accomplishments would never have voted for him.
One of Mother Oprah’s new age gurus is looking to establish a new cabinet level Department of Peace in the U.S. government. Oprah had a link to the Department of Peace idea up on her website that is now no longer functional.
For your true consolation read the words of the great Marian prophet, St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort (True Devotion, 46-48):
All the rich among the people, to use an expression of the Holy Spirit as explained by St. Bernard, all the rich among the people will look pleadingly upon her countenance throughout all ages and particularly as the world draws to its end. This means that the greatest saints, those richest in grace and virtue will be the most assiduous in praying to the most Blessed Virgin, looking up to her as the perfect model to imitate and as a powerful helper to assist them.
I said that this will happen especially towards the end of the world, and indeed soon, because Almighty God and his holy Mother are to raise up great saints who will surpass in holiness most other saints as much as the cedars of Lebanon tower above little shrubs. This has been revealed to a holy soul whose life has been written by M. de Renty.
These great souls filled with grace and zeal will be chosen to oppose the enemies of God who are raging on all sides. They will be exceptionally devoted to the Blessed Virgin. Illumined by her light, strengthened by her food, guided by her spirit, supported by her arm, sheltered under her protection, they will fight with one hand and build with the other. With one hand they will give battle, overthrowing and crushing heretics and their heresies, schismatics and their schisms, idolaters and their idolatries, sinners and their wickedness. With the other hand they will build the temple of the true Solomon and the mystical city of God, namely, the Blessed Virgin, who is called by the Fathers of the Church the Temple of Solomon and the City of God . By word and example they will draw all men to a true devotion to her and though this will make many enemies, it will also bring about many victories and much glory to God alone.
An illustration of the way in which the Church has been emasculated over the last half century is the fact that there is still no resounding mandate from the leaders of the Church here in the United States to make sure that Catholics know their obligation in regard to the support of the culture of life. We are a mealy-mouthed bunch of girly boys.
There was a time when the bishops even had the Hollywood hooligans quaking in their boots. By wielding its “threat of condemnation” the American bishops’ Legion of Decency “effectively censored films.” Film producers would send the reviewers of the Legion copies of films before release and then make adjustments afterward in order to avoid a bad rating.
Not only did Hollywood quake, but Catholics were eager to follow their shepherds. Here is the Legion’s oath which many Catholics devotedly took:
I wish to join the Legion of Decency, which condemns vile and unwholesome moving pictures. I unite with all who protest against them as a grave menace to youth, to home life, to country and to religion. I condemn absolutely those salacious motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land. … Considering these evils, I hereby promise to remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality.
Can you imagine? Now what is the state of Hollywood? Remember the Golden Compass and Catholic reviewers behaved as thought their faith really had nothing to do with their role as “Catholic” reviewers?
Anyway, Archbishop Chaput has taken Douglass Kmiec and the other devotees of the anti-Messiah to task for their delusional support of the Candidate of Abortion. Think about it. Once upon a time, bishops were not afraid of telling catholic they shouldn’t watch girly movies. Now we tip-toe ever so softly when we suggest that Catholics should not support baby killing.
“To suggest—as some Catholics do—that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse,” Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled “Little Murders.”
The Obama campaign has been promoting an unusual-suspect sort of endorsement from Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor and former legal counsel in the Reagan administration.
Kmiec wrote a book making a Catholic case for Obama. He argues the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teaching like care for working families and the poor and foreign policy premised on peace over war. Democratic efforts to tackle social and economic factors that contribute to abortion hold more promise, Kmiec said, than Republican efforts to criminalize it.
While applauding Kmiec’s past record, Chaput said: “I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”
Pro-Obama Catholics “seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues,” said Chaput, who wrote a book this year, “Render Unto Caesar,” about Catholics and politics.
Why has it not been made more plain. Voting for Obama is a mortal sin. Plain and simple.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Why am I not surprised? Hitchens is unable to conceal his sneer for Sarah Palin and for those who attend her rallies, which just makes his cheerleading for Obama on foreign policy and defense even more ridiculous.
Anyway Laura Ingraham did not fail to hold his feet to the fire.
Here is very interesting article on Doug Kmiec of flip-flop from Romney to Obama fame. Kmiec, a “pro-life” professor of constitutional law and long time Republican, has endorsed Obama because the Democratic senator has promised to reduce the number of abortions. The article points out that Obama has inconsistently (surprise) promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment which prohibits governmental funding of abortion.
I asked Kmiec, in light of Obama’s commitment to taxpayer funding of abortion, if he would consider renouncing his endorsement if the senator didn’t change his position. “I haven’t seen the social science literature that you’re obviously much more privy to and obviously sending me,” he said. But assuming that public funding would significantly increase the abortion rate, Kmiec added, “I would be at a loss to say anything other than I can’t support the senator at that point.”
Kmiec pointed to a piece he had written for Slate, in which he declared his endorsement of Obama “will be renounced more loudly than it was given,” if Obama failed to “work to reduce the incidence of the practice [of abortion]”.
I emailed Kmiec reports on a number of studies showing that Medicaid funding of abortion causes a higher abortion rate. But when he got back to me in mid-June, he said Obama’s position on abortion funding was not a dealbreaker. Kmiec explained that one “must take full account of the church’s social teaching” on other issues like poverty, war, and the environment. When I asked him about his statement that he would likely renounce his endorsement if Obama didn’t reconsider abortion funding, he replied: “If I said it quite that categorically, that’s not quite where I’m at.”
Well, well. No surprise really. More of the same. More mealy mouthed Catholicism. We need leaders, knights, crusaders martyrs, not politicians and lawyers. I understand political expediency, but this is beyond the pale. Pray for saints and martyrs among our leaders and pastors. Pray, pray, pray.
The courious thing is how someone like Kmiec got to the point of selling the farm.
Yes, more pushing the envelope.
- Catholic League: Where’s Obama’s ‘Catholic Advisory Council?’
- TD Jakes Meets with Obama (And Doug Kmiec)
Obama is taking his general campaign to the “least likely’s,” Evangelicals and Catholics. Of course, the Messiah can do anything, no matter how preposterous, and get away with.
Doug Kmiec is not just an Obama supporter, he is now an adviser. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Kmiec disengenuously quoted Deacon Keith Fournier’s Catholics, Voting and the Common Good. While the deacon still wants to defend Kmiec as a good Catholic, he does strongly disagree with him:
While I agree that the civil discourse should be elevated, executing the canons on withholding communion is not vicious and uncharitable. Quiet the contrary. Kmiec is not a merely a defender of the right to vote one’s conscience. He is a flagrant campaigner for Mr. Planned Parenthood himself.