“Obama and the bishops are talking the same platform...”

So said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec in a talk given a week ago at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo. California Catholic Daily reports:

Kmiec was introduced to the audience of about 300 by Fr. Richard Benson, C.M., academic dean of St. John’s. Professor Kmiec elicited laughter by mentioning the reaction of people in other parts of the country to the name of his home parish: Our Lady of Malibu. He also established his “Catholic credentials” by mentioning his past work as a professor and dean at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. After a few more jokes, Kmiec noted, “American Catholics have chosen the popular vote winner for the last 10 presidential elections.” This means, Kmiec explained, that “we are not in anybody’s pocket” and that “we have given real meaning to [Pope] John Paul’s wonderful [teaching] where he said that Catholicism is not an ideology; it transcends political parties.”

Is that really what it means? It would take a lot more to convince me. Perhaps it simply means that most Catholics are political moderates who go in whichever way the winds of "change" or political momentum are blowing. Or that Catholics really aren't much different from other Americans, for good or for ill. But it also brings up, once again, the question that has been much discussed recently: who are the "American Catholics"? And do that description mean much of anything?

Later in the talk, Kmiec described meeting Obama at a forum for “faith leaders in Chicago.” Kmiec described how he had challenged Obama about his statement that the senator wouldn’t want his daughter to be “punished with a baby.” Kmiec recounted: “So I said to him: ‘What in the world are you thinking?’ [He asked me] ‘…how many children do you have?’ I said ‘five.’ He said, ‘When your wife first told you that she was with child, how did you feel?’ I said ‘great.’ Then he said: ‘There are some people who don’t have… [much], who don’t have a husband, who are… just barely knowing where they’re going to eat… and the announcement to them of a child coming is… [not great].’”

Wow, that's simply mind-blowing, isn't it? Who would have ever thought that for some people the prospect of having a child would be an occasion for stress and anxiety? Is that what real people actually experience from time to time? Yes, I'm being very sarcastic, for the simple reason that most people are aware of these sorts of situations and feelings, even if they've never experienced them. What's bothersome is that the "revelation" of this reality is some sort of semi-epiphany for Kmiec. What is equally disturbing is that it's not clear (since I've not seen the entire speech) if Kmiec makes a clear distinction between the subjective (anxiety, conflicted feelings, etc.) and the objective (human life is precious and abortion is evil). In addition, it's still not evident in the least that the word "punished" is appropriate; in fact, it's not. It is, however, revelatory, for it indicates that for President-elect Obama the greatest good in life is not life, but the good life; that is, if having a baby might make your life more difficult, it's best to consider having an abortion. Put another way, he seems to believe that some actions shouldn't have consquences. Again, why?

Kmiec described another exchange at the same meeting in which Franklin Graham (son of famed Protestant evangelist Billy Graham) asked Obama whether or not the senator believed that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Obama paused, said Kmiec, and responded: “No, I believe He’s my way.” Graham shook his head and asked again, “Is He the Way?” After another pause, Obama mentioned that the person who had been a “great Christian witness” in his life was his mother, and she never practiced [traditional Christianity]. Yet, he believed, God would find a way for her to be saved. In response to that exchange, Kmiec said, “I never doubted the senator’s faith again.”

His faith in what, exactly? But, even setting that aside, there seems to be an obvious confusion again about the difference between the subjective and objective subjects at hand. There may be some sort of subjective faith at work, but toward what objective reality is it oriented and rooted in? Can someone not "practice" traditional Christianity and still be a "great Christian witness"? Is there not an overt and necessary connection between orthodoxy and orthopraxy? This is similar to Dan Brown saying that he is a Christian, "although perhaps not in the most traditional sense of the word." It is rather void of any specific meaning. The point isn't so much to say, "Obama's mother wasn't a Christian," but to simply wonder: What or who did she have faith in? What or who does he have faith in? And how does that faith inform his public decisions?

Kmiec described another exchange he had with Obama: “I think Obama ought to accept… [the pro-life argument from Natural Law Theory]. I told him as much. And his reply is to say: ‘I see my duty as wider than just your faith tradition. I respect your views, but I also have to respect theirs [those who don’t believe abortion is wrong].’ And so he finds himself in this far left secularist position… to respect the choice of the mother.”

This, folks, is pure nonsense. No one says, for example, that because there are some people who hate the Jews, or believe slavery is a good thing, or think Muslims should be kicked out of the U.S., that Obama is required to respect those beliefs. This is not about "respect." It is about what the man believes, and his beliefs are quite obvious from his public record, as has been pointed out a billion times. Why is this so hard to understand? And why is someone like Kmiec apparently satisfied by such a piece of semantic twaddle? These and related questions will, I'm sure, continue to be asked for they deserve good answers, not merely sophistic smoke screens.

Comments

[dad29]

Something else demanding a good answer is why Cdl. Mahony's Seminary invited this fellow, Kmiec, whose role-model is Judas.

[sc]

Are we giving to much credence to what this professor is stating? If no one covered him or talked about him, would he not just go by the wayside?

[Rich Leonardi]

Mr. Kmiec needs some soul-searching time away from cameras and reporters. I can't help but think that inanities like this would be less likely after, say, a 60-day hiatus.

[LJ]

Kmiec seems more and more like a case study of a follower in a cult of personality. Obama's answers all sound to me like a politician covering all bases and committing to nothing substantial. Nothing profound, nor intended to be profound or above his pay grade, on purpose what Forrest Gump did purely by accident. It is an amazing phenomenon, really, and Kmiec is just one of many.
It does make you wonder if you were to snap your fingers in front of him would he suddenly wake up and not know where he has been for the last six months.

[Dan Deeny]

Thank you for this information on the abortion business. Yes, the problem is Prof. Kmiec, Sen. Biden, and other Catholics like them. I can't help but thinking of all the German Catholics who didn't resist the Nazis' rise to power. You must have seen the pictures of the Austrians cheering the Nazi arrival in Austria after the Anschluss. At the time Austria was almost all Catholic.

[Andrew]

"for President-elect Obama the greatest good in life is not life, but the good life; that is, if having a baby might make your life more difficult, it's best to consider having an abortion."

I couldn't put it better myself, Carl. Even if you leave abortion out of the picture, how does Kmiec justify Obama's purely materialistic reasoning. What would Kmiec say about John the Baptist: A single, celibate man in his 30's, childless, poor, "religious fundamentalist", who was executed by the state. What about the prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36-38) who did not live the good life: "She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day."

President Obama is a man of this world. I do not expect him to share Jesus's values. Kmiec, however is a different matter.

[Bender]

Can't we go back to the days when Kmiec was a nobody?

You know, if it wasn't for "traditionalists" and "conservatives" repeating everything he says, nobody would ever know what this guy has said or done. That is to say, YOU are responsible for promoting this guy as much as, if not more, than he is.

IGNORE HIM. That is the only proper response.

[W.]

And the next Ambassador to the Holy See is ...

Hmmm.

[Loyolalaw98]

The salt in this wound is that St. John's had Kmiec speak at the "Newman Eberhardt Memorial Lecture." The late Fr. Eberhardt was a professor of Patristics and Church History at St. John's. He was a bastion of orthodoxy in an otherwise modernist sea of academics. The notion that Fr. Eberhardt's confreres in the Vincentian Order would choose a lecture under Fr. Eberhardt's name to give Kmiec a platform to spread his utterly schewed and anti-Catholic views is hyper-galling.

Undoubtedly Fr. Eberhardt is smiling in heaven. In his classes he would frequently urge the more traditional among us not to fret. "God has guaranteed the survival of His Church until His Son's second coming," would be his comment. He would then add, with a more serious aire, "The Church Militant's survival is a fait acompli, regrettably our Republic has no such insurance."

I wish Fr. Eberhardt were still alive and at St. John's to offer even a modicum of anti-toxin to the rubbish Cardinal Mahoney is allowing in his Arcdiocesan Seminary.

[Gunnar Gundersen]

As a former Kmiec student I have been shocked about his 180. He was my sponsor in the Catholic Church and I chose him because of his orthodoxy, now, I have a hard time recognizing him as the same man.

Plus, he definitely should not be allowed to use the pro-life moniker anymore. I heard that at the meeting he said the fight to obtain legal protection for the unborn is "over" and in a L.A. Times article on Oct. 17, 2008 he stated that when people disagree on an issue like abortion the law must leave a "space" for each of us to exercise our personal judgement (i.e. pro-choice).

Therefore, I think it is important to discuss what he says in Slate, LA Times, NY Times, etc., but not let him get away with a self-describing himself as "pro-life" when he has now clearly adopted a pro-choice stance.

Gunnar Gundersen

[Ex-Voto]

The "Christian witness" of Obama's mother is a vast topic unto itself, particularly since Obama has repeatedly held her out as the dominant inspiration and model for his faith and values.

During the campaign he frequently painted his mother as a conservative Christian from Kansas. It turns out that Obama has a history of contradictory statements regarding his mother's supposed conservative Christian values.

Alexander LaBrecque's heavily footnoted 3 part series at American Thinker, Obama's Religious Ruse: 'I've Always Been a Christian' makes a persuasive case that Obama has created a false image of his mother so as to win over Christian values voters. The "Kansas Christian" is revealed to be a woman with a history of atheist-agnostic-secular humanist-universalist-new-ager-socialist beliefs.

(The first part of LaBrecque's piece is better than the rest of the series, which devolves into a less compelling, more tendentious subjective opinion piece.)

[Jeannine]

Has anyone ever considered that this very intelligent Douglas Kmiec wants to be a Supreme Court Justice? It would certainly answer why he is spewing such jibberish. What constutional lawyer would not like to become a justice on the Supreme Court? If I'm not mistaken his name was on the list of people who were considered under the current president. The man is ambitious, political, and an opportunist.

[Ed Peters]

Bingo, Jeannine.

[W.]

What would make Kmiec think that a President Obama would nominate him (and his allegedly pro-life and pro-natural law views) instead of the many leftist or center-left law professors and judges out there?!!!

It is hard to imagine Obama nominating anyone other than a more acknowledged liberal. Kmiec would be too much of a risk to the left and he, Kmiec, should be able to see that.

[Evan]

Not that this negates anything else you've said, but I think the point is worth making... simply for the sake of good listening skills and pursuit of accuracy...

Obama's comment about his daughters being "punished with a baby", crass as it is, was not offered in the context of a conversation about abortion, but rather about sex education. Those who say he mentioned this as a reason to support abortion rights are simply not correct (last I checked abortion doesn't prevent STD's, mentioned by Obama directly following his comment on a baby as "punishment"... another clue that he's being read out of context).

I understand the draw of using this juicy soundbyte to slam Obama on abortion, but really criticism should be directed to his views on contraceptives and sex education, and even here it is worth mentioning that he had clarified the family as the primary place where this education should occur. Otherwise, I don't see how the quote is being used for anything but rhetorical flair... "look what HE said about BABIES!!!"

We can make our case without resorting to that, and there are other cases to be made with regard to this quote that are being left by the wayside.

[Jeannine]

Ed,
Kmeic is playing politics -- plain & simple. Or are we seeing his true colors on abortion? I remember reading his opinions in the editorial pages of the Wall St Journal during the time of this Bush administration and while he was connected to Catholic U of America. He wrote about Supreme Ct decisions, ----- always for strict interpretation, classical pro-life, pro-family--- no wacky logic. Pope Benedict would have been proud of him! There was a buzz that he was on the short justice list for both Roberts' and Alito's position. Then all of a sudden he stopped writing in the WSJ. I think it was after Alito's confirmation. He then went to Pepperdine & started this nonsense on re-imaging his ideas to conform to the Democratic party philosphy enough, not to make himself appear too offensive to the moderate or conservative. (Even 2 yrs ago it looked like the democrats were going to win the presidency.) In the meantime, he got the ire of the loyal bishops, which is a good thing esp if he wants the secularists to like him. I would like to start a wager. I bet that Kmeic will once again be put on the short list for Supreme Ct justice (There are about 3 ready to retire or drop dead.) and will be confirmed if Mr O nominates him.

[Nerina Bellinger]

Evan,

I found this quote from a Catholic News Agency story:

While addressing a campaign rally in Pennsylvania last weekend, Sen. Obama said, "When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual," he said.

"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.

Did CNA leave out some context? Are there other quotes not mentioned? Because if this is an accurate representation of Obama's remarks, I don't see how they can be interpreted as anything but Obama viewing a baby conceived inconveniently as "punishment."

Help me out here.

[Nerina]

Evan,

Nevermind. I just reread your post and understand the point you were trying to make. You're saying that he believes in contraception to prevent a pregnancy. Not that he would promote abortion to rid his daughters of an unwanted pregnancy (although, given his record and other comments, I can see why people made the interpretative jump that this comment reflected his views on abortion and babies). Sorry for the confusion.