The Douglas Kmiec Straw Man Factory isn't in recession

On the contrary, it seems to be thriving. The most recent little pile of dried stalks is sitting in the field of a piece in The Tablet, "A Catholic word in your ear, Mr President," by Michael Sean Winters:

"You can't start the discussion on abortion with the President, or really with anyone with whom you are seeking common ground, by saying, ‘Everything you believe is wrong,"' Kmiec recently told The Tablet. "The first step is necessarily to acknowledge the good faith of the other, in order to obtain the President's view to see what concurring agreement might be identified for the purpose of building upon that."

And yet the President stated, in his commencement speech at Notre Dame:

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. [emphasis added]

The word "irreconcilable" indicates rather clearly that Pres. Obama believes those who oppose abortion are wrong about the intrinsic nature of abortion, just as many who oppose abortion are convinced that Obama is wrong in both his apparent understanding of abortion—that it is "tragic" but morally acceptable—and his obvious support of it. (As we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that because Obama often presents himself as somehow above the conflict between those "two camps" that he isn't sitting squarely in one of them.)

Kmiec makes key assumptions that simply don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. First, he assumes there must be "a discussion" with President Obama about abortion. But what if it is clear (as I think it is) that the President's only interest in such discussions is to say, with rhetorical skill but obvious intent, he isn't willing to reconsider his views and beliefs about the matter? And why must such discussions take place with the President and not, say, with any number of other political, religious, culture, and social leaders who might actually be open to authentic dialogue? Simply because he is President? It's funny how serious Catholics who quote Pope Paul VI or Pope John Paul II when it comes to life issues are sometimes accused of mindless papalolatry, but when folks such as Kmiec wallow in presidentialolatry it is a nearly sacred form of intellectual astuteness. (Of course, it really is much more a matter of Obamaolatry, but that only makes the point more obvious.)

Also, why is it contrary to the nature of a healthy and honest discussion to say, "I believe you are wrong about this or that, and I'm going to set out to show you why"? Would it be proper to avoid such an approach if the issue were slavery or racism? Kmiec insists it "is necessarily to acknowledge the good faith of the other," but in his recent public discussion with Robert George at the National Press Club, he did not extend that good faith to those bishops (among them Archbishops Chaput and Burke) who believe that Holy Communion should be withheld from pro-abortion politicians, authoritatively declaring, "No prelate should indulge the contrary view, especially since the
bishops who have done so seem more aligned with partisan, than salvific, interests." Kmiec continually extends good faith to those publicly contradicting the Faith, while denouncing as partisan agents those Shepherds who (gasp!) think public actions and the Faith cannot be conveniently divorced from one another.

Finally, why must pro-lifers seek "to obtain the President's view to see what concurring agreement might be identified for the purpose of building upon that"? Seriously, why? If we had no idea what President Obama actually believed about abortion, or if his public record was unclear or mixed, perhaps this would hold some water. But, really now, the creature at hand quacks, has feathers, flies, floats on water, and has a distinctively-shaped bill, and Kmiec is saying, "We need to see if this really is a bird before we rush to judgment and claim it is a duck." I, for one, don't see the point of listening to a field guide who is clueless about the lay of the land and cannot even correctly identify the creatures inhabiting it.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

What if, some day, Kmiec wrote an essay, and nobody read it?

[Kevin]

Kmiec's polemic reminds me of Bill Clinton-style bipartisanship: "Everyone stop your petty bickering and agree with me!"

And here I was thinking that it's the bishops who say what the Church teaches, not political appointees. Maybe the Obama administration wants to expand the Connecticut approach nationwide.

[Francis Beckwith]

No prolifer claims that everything the President believes is wrong. For I have no doubt that the President can locate California on a map, and Pepperdine University in particular.

But more seriously, I suspect that the President believes that he, as a person, has intrinsic dignity, and we would applaud him for that insight. But then we would ask him, at what point did you acquire this property? Now, we are onto something, a real discussion with substantive content.

Ironically, a discussion to reduce the number of women who need abortions (which is indeed the position he asserted at ND) is in fact to sequester the real hard question. So, it seems that it is Kmiec, not prolifers, who refuse to engage the president on what we really agree on, namely, that the President and other healthy adults are intrinsically valuable persons. From there, we must then raise the question, when did Barack Obama begin?

[Dr John James]

I watched that debate with Robbie George and was struck by Kmiec's reference to Archbishops Chaput's and Burke's( I think he referred to Denver and St Louis ) instruction regarding reception of the Blessed Sacrament by Catholic public officials endorsing abortion.If I recall correctly, Professor Kmiec used the word "intimidation" to describe the witholding of Holy Communion. He seemed to be suggesting that these Archbishops are closet Republicans first and Bishops second.
Kmiec was noticeably uncomfortable when George spoke about the " blood and bones" of the unborn. He did not want to engage the discussion on the nature of the unborn and the question of their moral and legal status.He took obvous exception to George's use of these words and almost accused George of hysteria.

[T. Shaw]

Mr. P: That's my policy.

Spirtual Work of Mercy: I strongly recommend K repent, confess, do penance, and satisfy the Church. His strenuous support, vote and numerous published writings for O advance and promote intrinsic evil: 47,000,000 MORE murders (Yes. It is murder.) of unborn babies.

K is a lawyer and seems to have lost sight of consistent Apostlic teachings since the first century. Lawyers do not set out to prove the truth. They set out to prove their cases. Assuming that, why read the omissions, distortions, exaggerations, fabrications, non sequiturs, outright lies he spews? Alas, I don't have the patience of a saint like St. Augustine who wrote The City of God to answer the Roman pagan enemies of the Church.

Nearly all politicians are crooks. The rest are idiots. Too many people want to give away their opportunities for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and salvation to crooks and idiots. That's the primal error of this peace and justice crowd who give precedence to this vale of tears over our true home which is with God.