Most Helpful Customer Reviews
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Civil Exchange, November 3, 2008
This review is from: Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama (Paperback)
I recently had an email exchange with Professor Kmiec about his belief that a pro-life Catholic can vote for Senator Obama. I very much disagree with his balancing of abortion vs. other social issues, and we exchanged our views. I think the following may help illustrate that people can disagree civilly and without demonizing those with whom they disagree. Some of the commentary here is rather over the top. I cannot post this without rating the book, but you should be aware that it's artificial because I haven't read it. I may update this review in the future after I do read it.
------------------------
My initial email:
I am a Catholic and an attorney with a career only three years shorter than yours -- in fact, I'm a gradute of CUA Law School, although it was before your deanship. I have read with interest your writings explaining why your support of Senator Obama is consistent with Catholic pro-life teaching. I have to take issue with you in a few particulars:
1. In your October 31 article in the National Catholic Reporter, you have misinterpreted then-Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 memo as supporting your position. Yes, he does say that it is possible to vote for a politician who supports laws that ease access to abortion when there are proportionate reasons for doing so. You have disregarded the fact that "proportionate reasons" have a specific meaning in Catholic doctrine, and we do not get to define them. We are taught -- even in the Ratzinger memo -- that abortion and euthanasia are on an entirely different moral plane from all other issues; thus, that only abortion and euthanasia qualify as "proportionate" with each other. I urge that if you are going to use Catholic teaching to support your position, you understand what that teaching really is. It's quite remarkable that you find support in the Ratzinger memo, which is even stronger against your position that the USCCB "Faithful Citizenship" guide is.
2. As for your apparent claim that Obama's social policies will reduce the incidence of abortion, you don't acknowledge that your belief is wholly speculative. We all hope that it is so, but experience in other countries, such as those in Scandinavia, doesn't support the conclusion. What is certain, though, is that Obama has promised certain specific actions that will ease the restrictions on abortion -- signing the Freedom of Choice Act and a repeal of the Hyde Amendment, for example. These will directly result in more abortions. Balancing your speculation against the facts of Obama's position leads me to the opposite conclusion from yours.
3. For the same reason -- easing restrictions on abortion -- although it is true in the current legal environment that no president can really reduce abortion, it is equally clear that the combination of Democratic president and Democratic Congress can, and if Obama is to be believed, will, actually increase its availability.
You certainly have the right to vote the way you want to, but if believe there is support in Catholic doctrine for your position that a vote for Senator Obama is a pro-life vote, then I'm afraid you're quite wrong.
--------------------------------
Professor Kmiec's response:
Thank you for your thoughtful note. I am grateful, and I come to these matters prayerfully, as I know you do. Might you cite me to the materials where the Holy Father or the USCCB define proportionate reason to be limited to abortion or euthanasia? I am looking for an instance where a definition is given as opposed to the giving of a non-exclusive example which is how I believe both the then-Cardinal Ratzinger is best understood especially when compared to the non-negotiable/ intrinsic evil terminology in Faithful Citizenship which of course is shown by different example (e.g., abortion and racism).
I concede the speculative number of lives saved, but it is greater than zero which is what Roe-related litigation (which I do not oppose and which no President can stop) has delivered to date at least.
Will we ever see the Human Life Amendment again? Would it not be wonderful if the President of CUA, the Most Rev. David O'Connell, who is a true Catholic leader in America, and the Knights would launch a nationwide campaign? I'm betting the two of us would enlist.
All best, and in gratitude for your thoughts,
Doug
----------------------------------
My reply:
Thank you for your kind response. I suspect that you have received more than your share of hate email, and I trust you didn't take mine that way. And for what it's worth, I do believe you have not taken your position lightly, and I have little patience for those who accuse you of some nefarious intention.
And thank you for posing a different interpretation, which I had not heard before, of the Ratzinger memo as a non-exclusive example. I re-read it with that interpretation in mind and, although I can understand it, I don't agree with it. I interpret the memo as re-enforcing the idea that abortion and euthanasia are on a different moral level than any other grave sin. That makes very much sense to me as a moral matter: abortion is the deliberate termination of an innocent human life, as is euthanasia. None of the other grave sins, or intrinsic evils, has the same intent, although of course waging war almost certainly will have the same effect.
To clear up a possible misunderstanding: I do not say that only abortion or euthanasia can be a proportionate reason in the abstract; I believe that they are, in the moral sense, proportionate to each other, to the exclusion of other concerns. Unfortunately, I cannot point to any material in which either the Holy Father or any part of the Magisterium has defined "proportionate reasons." I have researched the issue as much as my limited time will allow, and theologians have interpreted the phrase differently. I can only say that having read and considered the varying interpretations, I agree with those who believe that only abortion and euthanasia are proportionate to (with?) each other.
I guess my position is that as to pro-life issues, I weigh the certainty of more abortions (due to removal of restrictions) against the speculation of fewer abortions and come to a different answer than you do. (But even having said all that, I'm not basing my vote on abortion policy in any case!) I do appreciate your posing it in the public square, and your courtesy in responding to my message.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
59 of 81 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The truth will set us free, September 18, 2008
This review is from: Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama (Paperback)
So polarized are our politics and our churches these days that it takes a Republican praising the Democratic candidate in order to create enough interest in the hidden truth beneath the 35-year struggle over abortion. Prof Doug Kmiec has written a deeply thoughtful, well-reasoned discussion of why the Democratic approach to solving the abortion problem should appeal to Catholics of all ideological stripes.
The extremists on both ends of the rope have profited handsomely over the years from playing up the pro-choice vs anti-abortion debate, to the frustration of most of the rest of us. The rarely acknowledged dirty little secret is that the vast majority of Catholics and other people of faith believe simultaneously in both positions: that the ideal would be to bring every baby into the world, but that there are grave unintended consequences from trying to criminalize the decision.
Conservatives love to talk about the 43 million abortions since Roe-v-Wade, but they never acknowledge the 43 million that came before 1973--when abortion was largely illegal. In other words, illegality has been tried before, and found to be sorely wanting as a strategy to fix the problem. Add on top of that the fact that abortions rose substantially under Reagan and the first Bush, and then fell steeply under President Clinton. Now the data shows convincingly that abortion rates have stagnated under President Bush.
Prof Kmiec points out that the punishmentalists have clearly been betting on the wrong horse, content to take a chance that abortion might possibly be outlawed sometime in the very distant future, rather than supporting a Democratic position with a proven track record of abortion reduction in the here-and-now. Reconciliation being a cardinal principle of Catholicism, Dr Kmiec makes a convincing case that supporting an Obama presidency is the more rewarding way to address the tragedy of abortion for anyone who has seriously grappled with this problem in all its complexity.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Genuinely seeking truth, October 26, 2008
This review is from: Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama (Paperback)
First let me say that I very much want exactly what professor Kmiec expresses as his hope, that abortions will be reduced in this country. Unfortunately, Senator Obama's own public statements contradict the professor's conclusions about the Senator's position on this issue. Let me also say that I believe Senator Obama when he speaks on this issue, he is not attempting to mislead anyone.
I would also like to point out that denying professor Kmiec communion is not supported by Canon law, however, his arguments for supporting Senator Obama, most especially with regard to the life issue, are fundamentally flawed. They are based on human law and human reasoning, and as scripture tells us, God's ways are not our ways.
The central moral argument that the professor offers for his position (bottom of pg 135) is that Senator Obama will improve the economic conditions of mothers in poverty, therefore we can overlook the Senator's advocacy for a legal system which supports abortion. First, the automatic conclusion that the Senator's economic policies will be better for poor women is presumptuous, or at the very least debateable, but what is not debatable is that Senator Obama advocates strenghtening the legal framework which supports abortion, and he provides detailed reasoning in his public addresses.
We must listen carefully to what a candidate says about this most important issue, and then see how that language relates to our Church's teaching. In answer to the direct question, which the professor asks on page 78 of his book, "Does Senator Obama contradict any part of that Papal list? (a list of non-negotiable items for the Catholic Church expressed by Benedict XVI) The clear answer is yes.
The reason the professor is misled is because he fails to acknowledge Senator Obama's number one priority when it comes to this issue. The single most important message here is that Senator Obama's first agenda is not to reduce abortions, though he may well aspire to that as a desirable consequence of his approach, however, Senator's Obama's number one agenda, and he admits this, is to protect a woman's right to choose. This is not an approach which will change a culture of death.
Senator Obama stated publicly that he cannot define when life begins. In fairness, and with all due respect to the Senator, who I believe is a good person that simply does not understand these issues - we all know when life begins. I fail to understand how you can affirm life when you cannot even take a stand on when it begins.
Senator Obama said publicly that he believes Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance with this election, and that he will appoint judges who will defend it. Depite the considerable confusion in the chapter of the book that deals with this very complicated topic, no one can debate that Roe defends and allows for abortions, and Senator Obama continues to support it. The professor suggests (pg 50) that the only issue Pro-Lifers (or what he uncharitably refers to as Republican Faith Partisans) have against Senator Obama is Roe. This is both disingenuous and false. However, the fact remains that supporting evil in hopes that good will come of it is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.
Beyond Roe, the Senator stated that he believes this is a debate about fairness, and that he wants to make sure that our young girls have the same opportunities as our young boys. One can only conclude from this that he means he would not want a young girl to have to carry the burden of a child when the young boy does not. If you doubt this, you need only listen to what Senator Obama said about his own daughters, who are neither poor nor disadvantaged. He said that if one of his daughters should make a mistake, he would not want her punished with a baby.
It is a debate about fairness, but it has nothing to do with economic disadvantages. To suggest that by improving people's "social conditions" (pg 63) we will reduce abortions, is to enter into the terribly unfortunate discussion about the economic level at which individuals will no longer find abortion acceptable. We either value life or we do not, it is not an economic question. Honestly, does anyone really believe that by providing more money or better living conditions we will encourage people to stop having sex, or that we will incentivize them to choose life when our political leadership tells them it is their "right" to choose otherwise. Social programs will not solve moral problems. We must provide care for expectant mothers, no one disagrees, but this is not sufficient to address a mind-set, perpetuated by a legal framework, that accepts the option of terminating a life.
Please help me to understand where in our Church's teaching we find support for Senator Obama's position. Better still, please, and I mean this sincerely, tell me how the professor's argument for helping the poor is supported by Senator Obama's statement about his own daughters. Where is the "ethic for life" to be found in this perspective when referring to two people who will be well educated and well provided for?
Finally, on page 92, the professor points out that it is perfectly appropriate for an Archbishop to "reaffirm the unambiguous teaching of the Church" when a politician actively sponsors legislation which advocates the acceptability of abortion. But then the professor fails to acknowledge his own glaring inconsistency on this very issue. Senator Obama said that his very first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.
It is important to note that Senator Obama did not say he would first sign legislation to assist the poor, he did not say he would first provide for more assistance to unwed mothers, he did not say he would first provide support to reduce violent crime, no, instead, he made it very clear that his very first act as President of the United States would be to sign a piece of legislation that would dramatically increase the number of abortions in this country.
We do not need to reiterate the clear teachings of our Church on this most important issue, but then with all Christian charity, I cannot understand how anyone can reconcile these teachings with the publicly stated positions of Senator Obama. What is remarkably clear in all of this debate, is that the Church is being divided. We must all remember that Satan is smarter then we are, and when he wants to divide the Church he will do it through brilliantly articulated contradictions.
Please pray, I know I will.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
