Professor Doug Kmiec expands on his recent Slate piece, “Reaganites for Obama?” (in which he wrote, among other things, “Sorry, McCain, Barack Obama is a natural for the Catholic vote,” in this guest commentary, “The Moral Duty to Inquire.” Although I think the original piece was, in several respects, misguided, I also think that most of what he says in this second piece — e.g., the Faith and Catholic Social Teaching are not the property of one party, Catholic voters have a range of issues to consider, etc. — is sensible.
My own sense, for what it’s worth, of some conservatives’ reaction to Prof. Kmiec’s original piece was not so much that they thought (certainly, I didn’t) that it is wrong to “inquire”, from a Catholic perspective, into the merits of the Obama candidacy, but that Kmiec’s original piece mis-framed the debate (as the second piece, for the most part, does not — I say “for the most part” because the second piece still appears to regard the Catholic position on immigration as weighing against McCain and for Obama, which is not how I see the matter.)
In any event, check it out. Prof. Kmiec, everyone knows, has been a stalwart defender of religious freedom and the sanctity of life, in the academy, in law, and in policy, for decades. I do not believe that Sen. Obama — his attractive personality notwithstanding — is, in fact, a “Catholic natural”, but certainly, as Prof. Kmiec contends, it is entirely appropriate to ask whether Obama is, all things considered, the better choice for a Catholic. I don’t think he is, but I’m sure others will disagree.
Kmiec’s points are good, and very familiar to Vox Novans at this point. Deal Hudson has really turned into a cariculture of himself– when he mocks “cafeteria Catholics” who don’t share his partisan leanings, I would merely issue this challenge: let’s go step-by-step through the Faithful Citizenship document, and see whose views are in totality more aligned with the Church.
Something else puzzled me a little about the original Kmiec piece, and that is hsi framing the debate in terms of the “Reagan Catholics”. There seemed to be an unspoken acceptance that Catholics naturally leaned toward Reagan. That I would like to challenge. While some Catholics noddede toward Reagan because of abortion (not did Reagan did anything of value on that front), many others did so for economic and foriegn policy reasons– and, as the key USCCB documents at the time– the peace and economic justice pastorasl– pointed out, these agendas were not exactly aligned with the Church.
This peice is much better than the original. Resting his case on the Iraq War places himself on firmer footing. He still includes the death penalty, which I don’t think helps his case.
One thing that is a bit of a contradiction is that the USCCB seems to be saying that the ordinary cirucmstance is that one can participate in an election, as in voting for a viable candidate. This is seen against apparent rigorism that would seem invariably to remove the viable candidates from consideration. Dr. Kmiec touches on this in his peace, and this is something that the USCCB and the bishops should address.
If I thought Obama would appoint Supreme Court justices like Prof. Kmiec, I might consider voting for him.
Frankly, though, I think that the best interpretation of the Kmiec articles is that he really, really doesn’t like McCain.
Professor Kmiec wrote:
“For the record, having spent a lifetime writing in defense of human life in its fullest sense; in its natural laws sense; in its unmistakably Catholic sense; it is past ridiculous to suggest that I have any interest in exchanging my soul for a Supreme Court appointment . . . or any other equivalent of Richard Rich’s Attorney Generalship of Wales.”
What Professor Kmiec could have written and would have been equally true:
“For the record, having spent a lifetime writing in defense of human life in its fullest sense; in its natural laws sense; in its unmistakably Catholic sense; it is past ridiculous to suggest that I am the sort of person a President Obama would ever nominate to the Supreme Court.”
Morning Minion,
let’s go step-by-step through the Faithful Citizenship document, and see whose views are in totality more aligned with the Church
Except that Faithful Citizenship doesn’t say to look at things in totality, but to give the correct weight to fundamentally non-negotiable matters in relation to intrinsic evils. In that sense Obama/Hillary are by far the worst. Furthermore, even if you looked at things in a totality, the 99% of abortions that McCain believes should be banned equates to somewhere around 990,000 human lives per year murdered. Tell me where you can find anything in Obama/Hillary’s policies that would have such an impact as to outweigh that.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they
are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that
they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil”
actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A
prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In
our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because
they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others”
(Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the
destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that
violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
…
28. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different
kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of
innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is
not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3
…
37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed
conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral
obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.
These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and
ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic
guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
Speaking of Cafeteria Catholics…
God Bless,
Matt
ps. Speaking of disengenuous, why is it that liberals suggest it is a partisan position to consider, as the Church has instructed us, the intrinsic evils of abortion and euthanasia above all else?
pps. speaking of parttisan politics, it’s interesting when some in the Republican party dared to propose a completely pro-abortion candidate in Rudy Guilliani, he was soundly defeated in no small part due to the efforts of pro-lifers Catholic and others. Would that the pro-lifers in the Democrat party of death would or could do the same.
Giuliani’s defeat had nothing to do with Catholics, pro-life or otherwise. Catholics were a significant part of his constituency. They moved to Romney and McCain as Giuliani’s electoral chances diminished.
Matt,
“the 99% of abortions that McCain believes should be banned equates to somewhere around 990,000 human lives per year murdered. Tell me where you can find anything in Obama/Hillary’s policies that would have such an impact as to outweigh that.”
There you go again. Moral sentiment.
Give me one shred of evidence that McCain has stopped one human life from being aborted. Just one. Otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air by your comparison.
You’re caught in the outer reaches of a hypothetical proposition with no way to get down to earth.
“Frankly, though, I think that the best interpretation of the Kmiec articles is that he really, really doesn’t like McCain.”
So you’re saying that Kmiec doesn’t know the logic of what he’s writing????? Hmmmmm!
Kmiec has a classic case of McCain Derangement Syndrome. If the O-Cult is looking for a court-jester, I am sure that Kmiec will be willing to try out if it aids in his goal of dancing on the electoral grave of McCain.
To take the blather of Kmiec a good deal more seriously than it deserves, he was an ardent supporter of Romney. I voted for Romney myself in the Illinois primary. Romney and McCain had the same policy on Iraq: to win. Why does the position of McCain on the war bother him now, when he was quite willing to support Romney who had the same policy?
“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” ~John McCain, August 1999
How long before this phony flipflopper gets the endorsement of Natl Right to Life?
obama4prez,
let me get this straight, you are supporting strangle-them-after-they’re born Barack Obama, and attacking John McCain on the inconsistincy in his own statements about abortion?
Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are. (Aug 2007)
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
“Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion. (Oct 1999)
Wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. (Aug 1999)
Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing. (Aug 1999)
Nominate justices based on experience, and values. (Jun 1999)
Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
WHile McCain is by no means my dream candidate (I like MiKe Huckabee and ALan Keyes much better), and he does have a mixed record, he is rated at 0% by NARAL, and 75% by NRTL. His stated policy is to oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest (less than 1% of abortion).
Gerald,
your argument sounds exactly like Bill Clinton berating prolife protesters this week.
God Bless,
Matt
Donald,
The case you make re: Kmiec opposing McCain and supporting Obama out of sour grapes – given his previous support for Romney, whose positions on the issues for which Kmiec criticizes McCain were identical or WORSE from a Catholic perspective compared to McCain’s – is compelling.
I’ve blogged about it today, giving you full credit, of course.
Thank you Jay!