"Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire."
--Cicero, Brutus 37:140
("It is not so great a distinction to know Latin as it is disgraceful not to know it.")
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Prof. Charles E. Rice on Humanae Vitae
Charles E. Rice
Right or Wrong?
August 25, 2008
Notre Dame should, but probably won’t, commemorate this anniversary. Forty years ago, July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae (HV), reaffirmed the traditional Christian position on contraception. Until 1930, no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley rejected it.
The 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference gave cautious approval to contraception. Pope Pius XI replied that “any use… of matrimony… in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature… and a grave sin.”
When the Pill came on the market in the 1960s, the Catholic Church came under pressure to abandon its solitary stand against it. HV’s disapproval of the Pill brought a storm of dissent and ridicule on Paul VI, e.g., “he no play-a the game, he no make-a the rules.” Four decades later, nobody in his right mind is laughing.
Experience has validated the prediction of the Washington Post on March 22, 1931, that the approval of contraception “would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality.”
Contraception deliberately separates sex from procreation by acting to make procreation impossible; it makes man, of both sexes, the arbiter of whether and when life will begin; and it prevents the total mutual self-donation that ought to characterize the conjugal act. It also accepts the idea that there is such a thing as a life not worth living, i.e., the life that might have resulted had not contraception prevented it. If, through contraception, man makes himself (or herself) the arbiter of whether and when life shall begin, he will predictably make himself the arbiter of when it shall end, as in abortion and euthanasia. John Paul II described abortion and contraception as “fruits of the same tree.”
In HV, Paul VI foretold three evils that would result from the acceptance of “artificial methods of birth control”:
1. “[C]onjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” No. 17. One reason why sex should be reserved for marriage is that sex has something to do with babies. But if it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any relation to procreation, why should it be reserved for marriage, why should marriage be permanent and why should marriage be heterosexual?
As Methodist Pastor Donald Sensing wrote in 2004, the legalization of “homosexual marriage” became inevitable when the Pill severed “[t]he causal relationships between sex, pregnancy and marriage.” A contraceptive culture will legitimize not only homosexual activity, but also promiscuity, pornography, divorce, in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc. President R. Albert Mohler, Jr., of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said in 2005, “The … separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age—and one of the most ominous…. [T]he pill gave incredible license to everything from adultery and affairs to premarital sex.” From 1960 to 2000, the percentage of children born out of wedlock in the United States rose from 5% to 33%. Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by cohabitation. The 2008 Gallup Values and Beliefs poll showed that 61% of Americans approve of sex between an unmarried man and woman. And so on.
2. Woman as an object, so that the man considers the woman “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” No. 17. The objectification of women is evident in the prevalence of pornography, especially on the Internet. Women are the big losers in the contraceptive culture. Francis Fukuyama, in “The Great Disruption,” said the pill and abortion liberated men from responsibility and put the burden on women, allowing “many… ordinary men… to live fantasy lives of hedonism and serial polygamy formerly reserved only for a tiny group of men at the very top of society.”
3. “[A] dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of … public authorities.” No. 17. Since 1970 the federal government has promoted population control through contraception, with a focus on minorities and third world countries. Planned Parenthood and other publicly funded entities promote all forms of birth control among minorities to the extent that 37 percent of all abortions are on black women although blacks, at 36 million, are only 13 percent of the U.S. population. Since 1973, 10 to 13 million black babies have been aborted.
“Contraception,” said John Paul II, is “so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified.” That conclusion is not disturbed by the legitimacy of natural birth regulation. As HV put it, “If … there are serious motives to space out births… it is… licit to take into account the natural rhythms… for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles.” No. 16.
HV was a defining event because Paul VI refused to follow an insane world over the cliff into an abyss of nihilism. He stood for the Truth of love and life. Conjugal love, he said, “is total … . a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations.” No. 10.
Members of the Notre Dame community could best commemorate HV by a prayerful consideration of its Truth.
Prof. Emeritus Rice is on the Law School faculty. He can be reached at rice.1@nd.edu or at (574) 633-4415.
Right or Wrong?
August 25, 2008
Notre Dame should, but probably won’t, commemorate this anniversary. Forty years ago, July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae (HV), reaffirmed the traditional Christian position on contraception. Until 1930, no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley rejected it.
The 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference gave cautious approval to contraception. Pope Pius XI replied that “any use… of matrimony… in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature… and a grave sin.”
When the Pill came on the market in the 1960s, the Catholic Church came under pressure to abandon its solitary stand against it. HV’s disapproval of the Pill brought a storm of dissent and ridicule on Paul VI, e.g., “he no play-a the game, he no make-a the rules.” Four decades later, nobody in his right mind is laughing.
Experience has validated the prediction of the Washington Post on March 22, 1931, that the approval of contraception “would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality.”
Contraception deliberately separates sex from procreation by acting to make procreation impossible; it makes man, of both sexes, the arbiter of whether and when life will begin; and it prevents the total mutual self-donation that ought to characterize the conjugal act. It also accepts the idea that there is such a thing as a life not worth living, i.e., the life that might have resulted had not contraception prevented it. If, through contraception, man makes himself (or herself) the arbiter of whether and when life shall begin, he will predictably make himself the arbiter of when it shall end, as in abortion and euthanasia. John Paul II described abortion and contraception as “fruits of the same tree.”
In HV, Paul VI foretold three evils that would result from the acceptance of “artificial methods of birth control”:
1. “[C]onjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” No. 17. One reason why sex should be reserved for marriage is that sex has something to do with babies. But if it is entirely up to man (of both sexes) whether sex will have any relation to procreation, why should it be reserved for marriage, why should marriage be permanent and why should marriage be heterosexual?
As Methodist Pastor Donald Sensing wrote in 2004, the legalization of “homosexual marriage” became inevitable when the Pill severed “[t]he causal relationships between sex, pregnancy and marriage.” A contraceptive culture will legitimize not only homosexual activity, but also promiscuity, pornography, divorce, in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc. President R. Albert Mohler, Jr., of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said in 2005, “The … separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age—and one of the most ominous…. [T]he pill gave incredible license to everything from adultery and affairs to premarital sex.” From 1960 to 2000, the percentage of children born out of wedlock in the United States rose from 5% to 33%. Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by cohabitation. The 2008 Gallup Values and Beliefs poll showed that 61% of Americans approve of sex between an unmarried man and woman. And so on.
2. Woman as an object, so that the man considers the woman “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” No. 17. The objectification of women is evident in the prevalence of pornography, especially on the Internet. Women are the big losers in the contraceptive culture. Francis Fukuyama, in “The Great Disruption,” said the pill and abortion liberated men from responsibility and put the burden on women, allowing “many… ordinary men… to live fantasy lives of hedonism and serial polygamy formerly reserved only for a tiny group of men at the very top of society.”
3. “[A] dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of … public authorities.” No. 17. Since 1970 the federal government has promoted population control through contraception, with a focus on minorities and third world countries. Planned Parenthood and other publicly funded entities promote all forms of birth control among minorities to the extent that 37 percent of all abortions are on black women although blacks, at 36 million, are only 13 percent of the U.S. population. Since 1973, 10 to 13 million black babies have been aborted.
“Contraception,” said John Paul II, is “so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified.” That conclusion is not disturbed by the legitimacy of natural birth regulation. As HV put it, “If … there are serious motives to space out births… it is… licit to take into account the natural rhythms… for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles.” No. 16.
HV was a defining event because Paul VI refused to follow an insane world over the cliff into an abyss of nihilism. He stood for the Truth of love and life. Conjugal love, he said, “is total … . a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations.” No. 10.
Members of the Notre Dame community could best commemorate HV by a prayerful consideration of its Truth.
Prof. Emeritus Rice is on the Law School faculty. He can be reached at rice.1@nd.edu or at (574) 633-4415.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Welcome Wanderer Readers!
The Catholic Guys welcome your comments, criticism, recommendations, news, and convivial repartee.
Feel free to use our weekly Friday message (this one) to post your reactions and comments on our stories and commentaries.
Right now I'm looking for response to John McCain's savvy selection of Sarah Palin as his VP running-mate. One thing is already clear: the Left is apoplectic!
So have at it, thanks for coming, and stay in touch here with The Catholic Guys!
Chris Manion
Feel free to use our weekly Friday message (this one) to post your reactions and comments on our stories and commentaries.
Right now I'm looking for response to John McCain's savvy selection of Sarah Palin as his VP running-mate. One thing is already clear: the Left is apoplectic!
So have at it, thanks for coming, and stay in touch here with The Catholic Guys!
Chris Manion
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Letter to a Pro-Obama Catholic Friend
Dear [insert name of your misguided friend here],
Not a complete explicatio, but here goes.
Re: Obama on Abortion. The guy is the most pro-abortion candidate that this country has ever seen--radically so. He voted to allow children of botched abortions to die rather than be saved. There can be no compromise with the basic moral principle that an innocent life may not be intentionally terminated. That one issue IS more important than other issues of social justice. It is paramount and, from a moral perspective (and a sound philosophical one), cannot simply be one in a list of "other issues" whereby one weighs them and, on balance, other concerns outweigh the fact that the candidate is for murder. Murder can have no legitimacy in a civilized society. He is radically for murder. (He is consistent here.)
Re: Obama and Government Social Programs. Look to the Constitution. The founders set up a government of limited powers and based upon principles of federalism. I.e., the original design of the federal government is basically (and I am being terse here) to provide for a common defense of the states and to regulate mail roads. All other powers belong to the states. Subsequent to the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment we have a significantly changed constitutional structure. Significantly changed because the Supreme Court, in the early part of the 20th century, created the "incorporation doctrine" which applies the Bill of Rights to the states (illogical--and not the intent of the Founders!!!). Likewise, through an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court--coupled with the influence of positivistic jurisprudence of the Holmesian version--has greatly expanded the power of the federal government that we see today. It is bad jurisprudence. It is wrong. And it is contrary to the Constitution. Thus, in addition to judicial activism which had no small role in creating the Leviathan, we have a federal government that encroaches into our lives more and more and regulates the states and individuals more and more. Unfortunately, it is the prevailing jurisprudence today.
The Founders, in their federalism, had a view of the government that was very much in keeping with the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity, i.e., what can be handled at the lowest possible level, should be handled at the lowest possible level. Thus, I can spank and discipline my own kids when they get out of line--the city shouldn't do it, nor should the state, nor should the federal government. But what we see with the Hillary and Obama types is the "it takes a village" mentality. Their view is that the government should have the solution. The government should set policy. The government should be the answer. The government should tell me how to discipline my kids. (We see this already happening in CA.) Conservatives (as distinguished from Republicans) answer--"Government, get the hell out of my life. I know how to best govern myself and my family." This is not to say that there is no role for government, there is. But it is limited. It shouldn't extend to mandating health insurance or setting curricula in schools or disciplining somone's kids.
The Church and intermediary groups should be providing for social welfare. Good Catholics can differ on approach. I would challenge the pro-government-as-providing-social-welfare types to point to me one program that is a success! There are none. (Case in point: public schools.) They have all been abysmal failures. In fact, they are inimical to anyone wanting to live the culture of life. Let's take a few examples from Obama. Utilizing the power of the federal government he wishes to expand contraception, sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, expand sex ed in the schools and further his radical agenda on "reproductive rights." (see here) (There are other things as well, but I am focusing on some paramount "cultural issues.")This all under a theory of government that says the government should do these things. This takes power away from the people and places it in the hands of the jackasses in Washington.
I will leave aside all of Obama's questionable associations with noted socialists, his esteem for the writings of communist Frantz Fanon and a number of others whose views are inimical to our country's traditions, and finally, his esteem for "critical legal studies" (the view that legal language is, in fact, a false discourse that perpetuates hierarchies-men over women, rich over poor, majorities over minorities whereas the object of law is to not merely determine "constitutionality" but force-feed "equality" whether the law requires it or not)as opposed to a sound jurisprudence.
For Catholics and those interested in common sense, there is nothing that can possibly commend this guy to gaining our vote. Creating further dependence upon government and making it more difficult for families to live as Catholics in an increasingly secular and regulated society is what Obama is all about. He's an arrogant socialist.
These discussions are better over drinks and cigars (if we can find a place to smoke them).
In Domino, etc.
Not a complete explicatio, but here goes.
Re: Obama on Abortion. The guy is the most pro-abortion candidate that this country has ever seen--radically so. He voted to allow children of botched abortions to die rather than be saved. There can be no compromise with the basic moral principle that an innocent life may not be intentionally terminated. That one issue IS more important than other issues of social justice. It is paramount and, from a moral perspective (and a sound philosophical one), cannot simply be one in a list of "other issues" whereby one weighs them and, on balance, other concerns outweigh the fact that the candidate is for murder. Murder can have no legitimacy in a civilized society. He is radically for murder. (He is consistent here.)
Re: Obama and Government Social Programs. Look to the Constitution. The founders set up a government of limited powers and based upon principles of federalism. I.e., the original design of the federal government is basically (and I am being terse here) to provide for a common defense of the states and to regulate mail roads. All other powers belong to the states. Subsequent to the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment we have a significantly changed constitutional structure. Significantly changed because the Supreme Court, in the early part of the 20th century, created the "incorporation doctrine" which applies the Bill of Rights to the states (illogical--and not the intent of the Founders!!!). Likewise, through an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court--coupled with the influence of positivistic jurisprudence of the Holmesian version--has greatly expanded the power of the federal government that we see today. It is bad jurisprudence. It is wrong. And it is contrary to the Constitution. Thus, in addition to judicial activism which had no small role in creating the Leviathan, we have a federal government that encroaches into our lives more and more and regulates the states and individuals more and more. Unfortunately, it is the prevailing jurisprudence today.
The Founders, in their federalism, had a view of the government that was very much in keeping with the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity, i.e., what can be handled at the lowest possible level, should be handled at the lowest possible level. Thus, I can spank and discipline my own kids when they get out of line--the city shouldn't do it, nor should the state, nor should the federal government. But what we see with the Hillary and Obama types is the "it takes a village" mentality. Their view is that the government should have the solution. The government should set policy. The government should be the answer. The government should tell me how to discipline my kids. (We see this already happening in CA.) Conservatives (as distinguished from Republicans) answer--"Government, get the hell out of my life. I know how to best govern myself and my family." This is not to say that there is no role for government, there is. But it is limited. It shouldn't extend to mandating health insurance or setting curricula in schools or disciplining somone's kids.
The Church and intermediary groups should be providing for social welfare. Good Catholics can differ on approach. I would challenge the pro-government-as-providing-social-welfare types to point to me one program that is a success! There are none. (Case in point: public schools.) They have all been abysmal failures. In fact, they are inimical to anyone wanting to live the culture of life. Let's take a few examples from Obama. Utilizing the power of the federal government he wishes to expand contraception, sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, expand sex ed in the schools and further his radical agenda on "reproductive rights." (see here) (There are other things as well, but I am focusing on some paramount "cultural issues.")This all under a theory of government that says the government should do these things. This takes power away from the people and places it in the hands of the jackasses in Washington.
I will leave aside all of Obama's questionable associations with noted socialists, his esteem for the writings of communist Frantz Fanon and a number of others whose views are inimical to our country's traditions, and finally, his esteem for "critical legal studies" (the view that legal language is, in fact, a false discourse that perpetuates hierarchies-men over women, rich over poor, majorities over minorities whereas the object of law is to not merely determine "constitutionality" but force-feed "equality" whether the law requires it or not)as opposed to a sound jurisprudence.
For Catholics and those interested in common sense, there is nothing that can possibly commend this guy to gaining our vote. Creating further dependence upon government and making it more difficult for families to live as Catholics in an increasingly secular and regulated society is what Obama is all about. He's an arrogant socialist.
These discussions are better over drinks and cigars (if we can find a place to smoke them).
In Domino, etc.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Madison Priest Wants Altar BOYS ...
... and the local secular-feminist reporter goes nuts.
But Father Z gets it right:
Let’s not forget the facts and underlying issues. Service at the altar is not a right. No priest can be forced to have altar girls or women serving. The custom of service by boys and men is to be given first priority and fostered.
But Father Z gets it right:
Let’s not forget the facts and underlying issues. Service at the altar is not a right. No priest can be forced to have altar girls or women serving. The custom of service by boys and men is to be given first priority and fostered.
Tragedy in Richmond
Here is the article from The Wanderer (June 19, p. 3) on the Richmond case that caused a lot of ... shall we say, concern -- and spawned a lot of stories and a few investigations.
For those interested in reading more, here's the Washington Times follow-up.
For those interested in reading more, here's the Washington Times follow-up.
Tragedy in
On April 29, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of
Not only did CCR of Richmond arrange an abortion for the girl and deliver her to the abortionist, but also “one member of [CCR] staff signed the consent form necessary for the minor to have an abortion.” The letter goes on to say that “about two months prior to this abortion the minor had been assisted by CCR staff with [the] implantation of a contraceptive device.”
Two USCCB officials signed the letter with Bishop DiLorenzo. One, Bishop John C. Wester of
According to their letter, the three bishops decided to write “because we felt the need to provide you [brother bishops] the information in this case so that you will not be caught by surprise should it be brought to your attention by other means…. It was, therefore, our desire to place this information before you proactively so that you can have confidence in the leadership and management that guides this work.”
In other word, damage control and saving face were paramount.
The bishops readily state that “the implantation of the contraceptive device and the abortion were contrary to basic teachings of the Catholic Church.” They state that they have “some responsibility” for the offices in which the “situation” occurred. “In addition,” the letter states, “ we are aware that this incident is a most regrettable stain on the record of excellence both of MRS and of Catholic Charities.”
First, The Murder; Then The Stonewall
I contacted the offices of all three bishops. Only Bishop DiLorenzo’s chancery responded. Anne Edwards, who is listed on the diocesan website as an advisor to the bishop, referred me to William Etherington, of the Richmond Law Firm of Beale, Davidson, Etherington & Morris. Mr. Etherington, who represents the diocese, confirmed that, once the incident came to Bishop DiLorenzo’s attention, neither the diocese nor CCR reported it to the Virginia Child Protection Services or to law enforcement authorities. Why not? In Mr. Etherington’s professional opinion, the incident did not constitute a crime in the
Since Mr. Etherington told me that the incident had not been reported, I tried to report it. After all, if abortion isn’t child abuse, what is? I called Maryjane Fuller, who is listed on the diocesan website as the Safe Environment Coordinator. It appears that CCR employees do not work for the diocese, they work for Catholic Charities. So Ms. Fuller told me that the CCR director, Joanne Natrass, should receive reports of sexual abuse regarding Catholic Charities employees. But I had already called Ms. Natrass. As soon as I mentioned the abortion, her secretary, Anita, said, “No Comment,” and hung up.
Ms. Fuller told me she had never heard of the incident. “This is horrible,” she said, and then, as we discussed it, she raised the question again: Does abortion even amount to “child abuse” under the Dallas Charter? Mr. Etherington, who is not a Catholic, had given his professional legal opinion, but Ms. Fuller sounded less certain. Whatever the answer, she emphasized that “the Diocese always stresses that you should report abuse not only because of the law, but because it’s the moral thing to do.”
Why The Coverup?
The Richmond Diocese website’s page for “reporting ‘ministry-related’ sexual abuse” lists telephone numbers for the County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services Division; the Virginia Department of Social Service; and the Virginia State Police. On the advice of counsel, neither the diocese nor CCR reported the incident – the abuse of the mother and the murder of the child -- to any of them. Nor did they inform any of the other chancery officials and pastors in the diocese with whom I spoke. They were all shocked when I read to them about the incident from their bishop’s letter.
The bishops waited three months to inform their fellow members of the USCCB, and apparently told no one else. But what are they trying to hide? Haven’t our bishops learned that cover-ups don’t work? Wanderer readers might remember a similar pattern during the 1990s, as one abuse scandal after another broke into the secular press and into the criminal and civil courts in one diocese after another. The stonewalls never worked. In fact, they did great – even historic -- damage to the Church – not to mention to the victims, their families, and their communities, and to the Mystical Body of Christ.
The
Bishop DiLorenzo plaintively laments that “some members of MRS staff were not sufficiently aware of Church teaching,” so they did not “take stronger and more appropriate action.” Well, whose fault is that? Doesn’t it sound all too familiar? For years, the Wanderer has warned that the USCCB and CCUSA bureaucrats are much closer to the pro-abortion crowd in
One Catholic official in HHS put it bluntly: “It’s come to this. The U.S. Government can’t trust the Catholic Church to take care of children.” This story is not over.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Professor Douglas Kmiec: Off the Reservation
Prominent Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec shocked the Catholic legal world when he endorsed Barack Obama for President. Kmiec didn't just make this one statement, he also wrote a second piece where he again reaffirmed his endorsement and--in this author's opinion--naively believes that Obama will be more receptive to an authentically Catholic perspective on the moral issues of the day. But, not to be outdone, it seems that Kmiec again was revelling in the glow that is Obama yesterday.
Some have speculated on Kmiec's seeming overnight change from a political and cultural conservative to a supporter of Obama, arguably the most left-wing and most pro-abortion candidate that the United States has ever seen. Some have opined that he is acting like a woman scorned from betrayals from the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq. Others speculate that the seeming dulling of his exercise of practical prudence is a result of the onset of Parkinson's disease. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Kmiec is not reasoning well in his support for Obama. Consider the following from Kmiec's June 7, 2008 article on Catholic Online (referenced above):
Kmiec sounds like a seamless garment kind of guy. "The balance of Catholic social teaching," in Kmiec's mind, seems ignore the very foundations of marriage and the family. While I agree with his comments on the family wage and tax structure, his comments on the other issues seem disturbing. The "ending of an unjust and disproportionate war" is a judgment and position that may be taken by a thoughtful Catholic, but other thoughtful Catholics may disagree and still remain Catholics in good standing. The "care and stewardship of the human environment," is a curious phrase. I'm not quite sure what the "human environment" is. Perhaps it is the family built on stable marriage? Finally, the "structuring of society...," is the most disturbing. "Structuring" or "Re-structuring society" is a favorite buzz-word of faculty lounge and coffee house Marxists. These types generally see big government as the answer and, in the process, they give short shrift to the Church's time-honored teaching of the Principle of Subsidiarity. Based upon his associations--aptly pointed out by Tom Roeser--it is not unfair to put Obama in this camp. Has Kmiec joined him?
Here are the facts:
Professor Kmiec has yet to explain to us why Catholics should vote for Obama.
Oh wait...he has:
"Obama's conception of promoting the common good is situated in those regular but welcoming neighborhoods most of us call home—foreclosure aside. He intends to ask government and non-governmental entities—and you and me—to do our part. Frankly, it is more than a little exhilarating to be given that much faith and trust."
With all due respect, Prof. Kmiec, there is no such thing as a common good that includes the murder of the innocent and the undermining of marriage and the family.
Some have speculated on Kmiec's seeming overnight change from a political and cultural conservative to a supporter of Obama, arguably the most left-wing and most pro-abortion candidate that the United States has ever seen. Some have opined that he is acting like a woman scorned from betrayals from the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq. Others speculate that the seeming dulling of his exercise of practical prudence is a result of the onset of Parkinson's disease. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Kmiec is not reasoning well in his support for Obama. Consider the following from Kmiec's June 7, 2008 article on Catholic Online (referenced above):
The on-going intelligent and civil discussion also allows us to grasp how no candidate who merely checks a pro-life box in a superficial way should be permitted to blind us from the balance of Catholic social teaching, including the strengthening of the family with a family wage and tax structure that is responsive to the needs of the average family; the ending of an unjust and disproportionate war; the care and stewardship of the human environment; and the structuring of society to look after the most vulnerable among us, including especially the elderly, the poor, and of course those whose voice can only be heard through ours.
Kmiec sounds like a seamless garment kind of guy. "The balance of Catholic social teaching," in Kmiec's mind, seems ignore the very foundations of marriage and the family. While I agree with his comments on the family wage and tax structure, his comments on the other issues seem disturbing. The "ending of an unjust and disproportionate war" is a judgment and position that may be taken by a thoughtful Catholic, but other thoughtful Catholics may disagree and still remain Catholics in good standing. The "care and stewardship of the human environment," is a curious phrase. I'm not quite sure what the "human environment" is. Perhaps it is the family built on stable marriage? Finally, the "structuring of society...," is the most disturbing. "Structuring" or "Re-structuring society" is a favorite buzz-word of faculty lounge and coffee house Marxists. These types generally see big government as the answer and, in the process, they give short shrift to the Church's time-honored teaching of the Principle of Subsidiarity. Based upon his associations--aptly pointed out by Tom Roeser--it is not unfair to put Obama in this camp. Has Kmiec joined him?
Here are the facts:
- Obama is on the record at a gathering of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (June 17, 2007) as saying that the first thing he will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
Professor Kmiec has yet to explain to us why Catholics should vote for Obama.
Oh wait...he has:
"Obama's conception of promoting the common good is situated in those regular but welcoming neighborhoods most of us call home—foreclosure aside. He intends to ask government and non-governmental entities—and you and me—to do our part. Frankly, it is more than a little exhilarating to be given that much faith and trust."
With all due respect, Prof. Kmiec, there is no such thing as a common good that includes the murder of the innocent and the undermining of marriage and the family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
