Confounding

Perhaps I'm a bit slow. Maybe I'm failing to attain a state of proper enlightenment which is the home of the elites who know best and reject the rest. It could be I'm such a black-and-white kinda thinker that nuance, sophistication, and erudition don't fit into my tiny, little world. But what to make of this?

1. A well-known leader, a non-Catholic, is described by a Catholic admirer as "a man of humility, great intelligence and capable of listening."
2. The admirer says the leader's beliefs on social issues are "my catechism come to life..."
3. The admirer says, "I believe life begins at conception, in the womb, and is to be protected there as it is to be protected at every moment throughout the progression of life..."
4. The leader tells the admirer he views abortion as "a moral tragedy" and that there were two ways of addressing it: either make abortion illegal or "do something about it and look at what causes people to have an abortion."
5. The leader acknowledges openly that abortion is the killing of a child: "What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table."
6. The admirer claims the leader "has taken some steps towards this [reducing abortion rates], perhaps not as fast as some would like..."
7. In fact, by just about any criteria and by all accounts, no concrete measures have been taken by the leader to reduce abortion. The leader, who apparently (according to the admirer) admits abortion is the murder of a child, has never publicly described it as such, instead opting for "moral tragedy." On the contrary, he has implemented a number of measures and policies which support and spread access to abortion.

The leader, of course, is Pres. Obama; the admirer is attorney and professor Douglas Kmiec, who made the remarks above in a recent interview published in The Times of Malta (Kmiec, in case you missed it, was made ambassador to Malta by Pres. Obama). Thomas "America Papist" Peters sticks a fork in this roasted pig:

Consider: Mr. Obama has chosen to fund oversees abortions at US taxpayer expense. He has destroyed President Bush's faith advisory board and populated it with pro-abortion representatives. He has appointed not a single pro-life Catholic or political figure to any position of responsibility in his administration. He continues to lie about the existence of abortion provision in his multiple health care provisions (a fact verified by multiple mainstream news media organizations). He has not lifted a single finger when Democrats in Congress have thwarted repeated attempts by Republicans to exclude the expansion of abortion funding and coverage from these health care plans. He has not put a single conscience clause provision into writing. His Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to pass legislation that will drastically expand the federal funding which Planned Parenthood and other abortion mega-providers will receive annually. He has ended the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. And these concrete examples are only those which come immediately to mind.

Imagine someone saying, in private conversation: "I believe spousal abuse/slavery/dog fighting is wrong," but then doing nothing about those evils while pursuing measures and policies that encourage, protect, and condone those evils? You would have to conclude, at some point, that 1) he is lying in his private remarks, 2) or he is willing to turn a blind eye to evil for the sake of political gain, 3) or he fails, for whatever reason, to comprehend the illogical of his position, 4) or he really is doing all he can to reduce those evils, but it takes a long time and his enemies aren't giving him the proper benefit of the doubt. Kmiec, it seems reasonable to conclude, has chosen #4. When, after a couple more years, millions more die in those awful procedures, will he make a change to his catechism?

Comments

[Dan Deeny]

Poor Prof. Kmiec: he went around the bend some time ago. We must pray for him. Cardinal Mahony is a different matter altogether. Thomas Peters is right to point out the Cardinal's problems. Who knows why the Cardinal says what he does? Does anyone have an answer?

[T. Shaw]

I'm pretty sure I'm the dullest reader here. And, Kmiec is an angel compared to me in the sin area. I'm often astounded that you allow my comments to appear.

Here's what I think:

1. Provide evidence/proof.

2. Apparently, his your cathechism is different from The Catechism of The Catholic Church.

3. Your strenuous support for the most rabid abortionist candidate in the history of the world BELIES that sentnece. I mean! I'm fairly stupid but how can you say life should be protected from conception when you helped elect the most opposed person to protecting life at conception? Oh, he's against the death penalty, and water boarding, and he's for taxing the rich to pay off his envious/hate-filled hordes of professional dependents and felons who will vote for him for life? Obviously, you believe it's ok to kill 2,000,000 babies a year while he stops water-boarding and impose secular socialism on the American people. I'm an accountant --- that doesn't balance. But, back top protecting life: do you support Obama using robot planes to execute (without even due process) people all over the world? And, thos two, poor Somalis he had murdered on Easter 2009!!! Oh, the humanity!!!!

4. I can't go on. I just barfed all over the keyboard!