21 - 30 of 31 Comments

1. Daniel Hurley

   2 years ago

   Thanks for a great piece, Deacon Keith. I too have been mystified by Doug Kmiec's support of Obama. Dr. Kmiec remains in my prayers, and I hope that he repents of his position and rejoins the Culture of Life and the fulness of the Catholic Faith.
   
   Jamie - it is not a question of "either-or" life vs. caring for the needy/poor. If we don't start with protecting Life from conception through natural death, everything else becomes distorted. The big difference between political parties is that the Left wants government to be the source of all charity, whereas the right wants the people and churches to be free to provide charilty (which, when allowed to do so, do a much better/efficient job). You make it sound like democrat = good/caring vs. republican = evil/uncaring. Makes for a great partisan talking point but it's not the truth.

2. Robert

   2 years ago

   Dear friends in Christ, The founding fathers of the United States of America fought for freedom. They did not fight for socialism, marxism, or communism. Our founders fought for freedom and the United States was and is the most generous nation on earth. Without the U.S. the world would be a much more dangerous place. This nation was founded upon judeo-christian values. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give a man(woman) a job along comes dignity and he feeds himself and his(her) family." The liberals in this country have taken your fish and gave them to so many that few care to learn how to fish anymore. Many expect and feel they deserve the fish and teach others they deserve to be fed fish. Once the debt is reduced, regulation reduced, there will be more jobs and then those that can fish need to decided if they want to fish. If I want to give my fish to others that should be up to me. It is not the government's role to steal my fish and then give them to someone who could fish but chooses not to. If you call that type of government Christian, I have a different opinion. That same form of government has decided that if someone does not have as many fish as someonelse it is all right that they kill their unborn children to save them the agony of having to few fish.
   That same form of government has decided that even if you have lots of fish and wish to kill your unborn child that is all right. Maybe then you won't need so many fish and then you can give them to someone who has fewer fish. In fact, that same form of government tells us it is ok to kill the unborn child because the waters are running out of fish. Please don't tell me that the liberals form of government cares more about his brother than the conservatives. The conservatives will help those that need it and can't do for themselves. The conservatives believe in personal responsibility and limited government. Conservatives believe you should teach a man to fish. If the man can but doesn't want to fish; then fish will not be taken from someonelse and placed in front of him.
   
   Elections have consequences.

3. Robert Burford

   2 years ago

   Sadly in an election the voter has to choose between two unacceptable choices.
   Both the Democratic choice and the Republican had voting records that were anti-life, and this includes the death penalty as well as abortion. So the choice was to sell a child's life for a vote, but never fear our votes do make a difference. Take the Republican senatorial primary in Florida. Marco Rubio was pro-life and Charlie Crist was pro-abortion.In this case our votes made a difference. Rubio won the primary and has gone onto vote against Planned Parenthood, but has unfortunately voted to cut programs for the poor and children. Pro-life issues are not as simple as party affiliations.Christ said that we would know people by their deeds.???The abortion issue will not be settled by politicians. People's hearts must be changed first.

4. sue

   2 years ago

   Jamie
   I believe Jesus would choose to save the innocent in the womb over the poor, feeing sorry for ourselves human beings already on this earth.

5. Rob

   2 years ago

   Deacon, as a voter, I am under the impression that we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as their is a pro-life canidate. Why is it that our bishops do not come out more strongly on that point? Why do I feel that they play both sides of the fence? And if they are and they are the leaders of our church, how is it that a voter can be wrong? The USCCB has left so much gray in the debate that it's no wonder folks are voting the way they do. And when are we going to start holding the pro-life politiicians accountable for their pro-life stances. If summit of my political action is my vote and that has to be done in light of the whole human person, why aren't we holding our politicians to the same standard? Honestly, all I feel I get for my pro-life vote is lip service and maintenance of the status quo. That isn't what we are trying to do is it? I really feel there is some imbalance on the imposition of responsibility. We the voters really have no choice and our supposed pro-life politicians are permitted to avoid putting life issues at the top of their agenda. Something is terribly wrong. Where is the accountability?

6. jh

   2 years ago

   Thank you, Deacon, for the clarity of your writing. Your ideas are consistent, and you write with charity.

7. margaretta

   2 years ago

   @Jamie - We must be Catholics first and vote as Catholics should. Who else will speak up for the unborn? Members of both parties ensure social programs are funded somehow - it is just the amount that they quibble about - but the entire country, President included, continues to sanction abortion. It is appropriate to reflect on the Agony in the Garden during this Lenten season. Do you think that the Lord wept tears of blood because of poverty, which he experienced and which has always been around? Do you think He wept because the rich got tax breaks? Please do not minimize the horror of abortion and our collective guilt for allowing it to continue.

8. Guest

   2 years ago

   Reading the information available online reveals the problems had nothing to do with his religious beliefs and everything to do witn his job performance.
   
   It also seems to me to be rather venal that the author gloats over another person's misfortune in a literally holier than thou manner.

9. Phil Cooper

   2 years ago

   Mr. Kmiec is probably regretting having supported Obama now. It is clear from the events of the last two years that the objective of the current administration is to suppress anything that might put the United States in a favorable light on the world stage.

10. Dr. Edward Peters

    2 years ago

    Excellent essay. I do wonder about a couple of lines, though, such as "Friends can make wrong decisions." The phrase "wrong decisions" is putting things much too mildly, to the point of losing focus on what were, in fact travesties committed by Kmiec. Also, the "impugnment" of Kmiec's reputation by Obama's people at State is trivial compared to the trashing he gave it himself by his electoral work for Obama. But that's history at this point.
    
    Anyway, I, too, hope that DK can someday serve as something more than an object lesson for the rest of us, but so far, that's the role I see him serving for some time.

Leave a Comment