Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Doug Kmiec's slide to irrelevance

I was puzzled by Doug Kmiec's first article on Barack Obama and felt compelled to write a response challenging his proposition. Others also responded prompting a reply that seemed to intentionally misstate the common criticisms of his article. All well and good and we moved on.

Until the other day.

Not content to claim that Obama is a "natural" for Catholics (an extreme pro-abortion politician ???), Kmiec endorsed Obama on Sunday in Slate. I read the article and the only thing i can take from it is that because Obama opposes the war in Iraq, Kmiec can support him. Of course Kmiec points out that he is a conservative Catholic who advised to Republican presidents as if to say that simply because you have these credentials, you are credible. Sorry, it does not wash.

I do not see any "careful thought" in the decision.

Obama and Clinton are two very pro-abortion politicians. In fact they take a great deal of delight in trying to show that one is MORE pro-abortion than the other. Obama tells us that he regrets voting to allow for efforts to help Terri Schiavo. Yup, just the kind of fellow i want in the Oval Office.

I do not understand Kmiec's actions or his motives. I can only say that I am truly disappointed in his action.


At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The major reason that since the end of the 1970's that polls show MORE support for politicians (such as Obama and the Clintons) favoring legal abortion-on-demand among US Catholics than in the overall electorate is not obscure ratonalizations by "Catholics" like Doug Kmiec, Andrew Sullivan, Garry Wills, etc., but of the fact that these public hypocrites, and even worse the politicians themselves, have never been called to account by the Church "leadership" for their participation in the worst human rights violation in all history.

Every year, the US Bishops' Conference takes up, and cowardishly ducks, even the absolutely minimal step of denying the sacraments to the Durbins, Kennedys, Dodds, etc., apparently because they fear losing the church's tax exemption. This is NOT a matter of "Catholic" doctrine (as would be contraception as a public issue), but of whether the Church's often-proclaimed defense of unborn life is more than just rhetoric, and of course countless non-Catholic churches already raise political issues all the time with impunity. But actually, if legal sanction for permitting extermination of undesired pre-birth children is a morally imperative matter, it would be well-worth the public debate that such a controvery would generate.

Although our own Phoenix Bishop Olmstead is temendously pro-life (in contrast to Tucson's disgrace), overall there has essentially been no reason to takes these national "leaders" seriously since the deaths of Cardinals Bernadin (a committed pro-life liberal) and O'Connor (an equally right-to-life conservative) approximately a decade ago, and they should really cease bothering with their pathetically token "pro-life" pronouncements....

John K. Walker
Phoenix, AZ


Post a Comment

<< Home