Kmiec Comes Home: Ambassador Resigns Position in the Obama Administration

By Deacon Keith Fournier
4/19/2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

To this day, I am of the opinion that Doug was used by the Obama campaign.

To this day, I am flabbergasted by Doug's position during the last presidential campaign and his decision to support Barack Obama. However, I still consider Doug to be a friend. Friends can make wrong decisions. If we care about them at all, we pray for their conversion. If being deceived by a Presidential candidate is Doug's major fault, we have all made the same mistake. Welcome home Doug, give me a call.

Doug Kmiec

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Readers of Catholic Online recall the series of back and forth disagreements which flowed between now Ambassador Doug Kmiec and I during the last Presidential campaign. Doug is a friend, albeit one with whom I held a very serious disagreement. His quickly written book released during the last Presidential campaign was entitled "Can a Catholic Support Him?" and subtitled "Asking the Big Question about Barrack Obama". It made a serious impact on the last Presidential election.

In the forward to the book he was kind enough to acknowledge me with these words "Deacon Keith Fournier's writing and editing of Catholic Online is courageous and wise." However, when I reviewed the book, I made my absolute disagreement with his position unequivocally clear. He asked the wrong question.

The proper question was not "can" but "should." The word "can" addresses the issue of capacity and ability. Any Catholic can exercise their right to vote in any manner in which they choose. The question is should they vote for someone whose position will not promote the fundamental truth that every human person has a fundamental right to life?

The Church to which Doug and I both belong does not tell people how to vote, in the sense of which candidate to choose in an election. "Should" on the other hand examines the morality of that choice given our obligation to exercise our freedom with reference to the truth.

In short, what is our duty? Sadly, in his argumentation in this book, Doug confused and conflated the two. It is on that fundamental point that I completely disagreed with Doug Kmiec, and I made my disagreement widely known. I stand by that decision and that disagreement. Doug Kmiec was wrong. Sadly, he also led many astray.

To this day, I am of the opinion that Doug was used by the Obama campaign. Why, I will not speculate because I would be led into sin. However, as a result of Doug's support, President Obama received votes which put him into the White House. In light of the effects this election had on the fundamental human rights issue of our age, the Right to Life, the result was absolutely horrendous. Thousands have died because of this and the world is worse off for their loss. The You Tube lead in to this article is an example of the sophistry which Doug Kmiec not only promoted but advanced.

Doug and I share a Catholic Christian faith which proclaims the existence of a profound body of Moral teaching, a subset of which is called "Catholic Social Doctrine." At its foundation is the insistence that every human life has an inviolable dignity and must be protected against unjust aggression from conception, through every age and stage of life, up to and including natural death.

This position respecting all human life at every age and stage is not a single "issue" but a framework through which all moral considerations and the positive law must be viewed. Human rights are goods of the human person, not free floating concepts.

They require human persons to both receive them and to exercise them. Catholic Moral teaching is rooted in an affirmation of the existence of a Natural Law which is knowable by all men and women because it is written on the human heart. This is the basis of the very hierarchy of rights which Doug Kmiec had spent his career attempting to espouse and train others to serve.

To the Christian believer this Natural law is understood to be a participation in the Divine Law and is further expounded upon by Revelation. However, the existence of this truth is an objective reality and does not require one to have any religious belief. It is also binding on all men and women. This is where Doug lost his way.

For example, it is always and everywhere wrong to take innocent human life and it is always and everywhere wrong to kill our neighbor (outside of a legitimate exercise of self defense). Ascribing to these truths does not require one to be a religious believer. In fact these truths form the very core of Western positive law and the Jurisprudence which it birthed.

Voting, like any human action, involves an ordering toward an end. Doug attempts in this little book to explain the morality of human action but does so incorrectly and inadequately. I asked my readers during the last election to examine the section entitled the "Morality of Human Acts" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Par. 1749 -1761) and compare it with Doug Kmiec's short treatment on page 135 of his little book which is abysmally deficient.

Further, it is essential to read Blessed John Paul II's Encyclicals entitled "The Gospel of Life" and "the Splendor of Truth" and then consider Doug Kmiec's approach to analyzing the morality of a human act. It is immoral to vote in a manner which fails to protect innocent human persons from being unjustly killed. This is what occurs ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 31 Comments

Rob
2 years ago
To the extent you forgive, you will be forgiven. Christ came to heal the sick. And I also seem to recall "forgive us of our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" as something we say daily. We would do well to keep that in mind as we vainly decide whether Mr. Kemic should be let back into the Catholic club. His sin is great, but it didn't eliminate people's free will or their ability to seek out the truth. Mr. Kemic is not the pope, a bishop or a priest. Those who chose to follow him did so of their own free will. Nothing he did or the government does eliminates free will. And as we all know, not even God the Father will take this away from us. He will let us choose death if that is what we want.
Bill
2 years ago
Mr Kmiec, in my estimation, made a tragic error in writing a book justifying why he felt, not believed, that he could vote for a virulently antilife president. By committing his rationale for his feelings, as opposed to his beliefs, to writing he betrayed the Author of Life every bit as much as Judas. Moreover, he led other less informed catholics, who were looking to justify their feelings as opposed to their beliefs, to vote for an unapologetic pro abortion candidate. For this he does not have to answer to anyone on this earth and I have no burning desire to hear Mr Kmiec apologize. He will, however, have to justify his actions at his final judgment. To this end, his book will be of little assistance!
Theresa
2 years ago
First, I must say that I often find many of the Comments as excellent as the Articles. I am also of the mind that "the Party" should not be the focus of our vote; rather the Principles of the people running for Office is what we should be weighing. Our nation's "Fundamental Principles" are ranked in order of importance. First comes: LIFE, next comes LIBERTY (includes our right to express our Religion in public as well as in private, without interference from government--as long as our religion does not violate the LIFE Principle) and then "the Pursuit of Happiness" (that leads all the way to being "Happy with [God] forever in Heaven--what we learned in First Grade Religion Class!) as long as it doesn't violate the first 2 Principles. Needless to say, these three Principles accord perfectly with the Catholic/Christian Faith. This is why both Pope JP II and Pope Benedict so highly praised our Founding Principles. Considering the impact our President has on the implementation of these Principles, we do well to weigh well where candidates stand on these Principles. If we did that, I would venture to say, we wouldn't be in all the trouble we've seen (in many areas of government/national interest) since Roe v Wade. Needless to say, we need to pray at all times for our President--that he lead from a position of integrity and truth. I am very concerned re. where we are going and being taken these days....One last thing: re. meeting the needs of the poor, the homeless, etc., I agree that "the people" do a better job than the government; it is "the people" who give out of their love--not the government. An awful lot of tax dollars is wasted, and also spent on administrative costs. (I think we would be surprised at just how much of our tax dollars go into these two pots--that doesn't get to the people who are in need!) We need to re-examine and re-engineer the operations in "Washington" (and in our States) --from head to toe! The financial crises we are in could be a real start--IF the LIFE and LIBERTY-related matters are also brought back on track in the process....
Rob
2 years ago
Vance, you missed my point. Actually, with the exception of the early stages of Afghanistan, I think Libya and Iraq are terrible mistakes. I think our continued conflict in Afghanistan is also a mistake. My point wasn't to say that Libya was a just war at all, I am merely saying if we are going to justify military intervention for the loss of life occurring in Libya, why are we content to wait on politicians to stop abortions by trying to use our broken political process? I would hope that our decisions to wage war would be made without a D or R label.
roman
2 years ago
Austine

You say we should vote for the least bad candidate because no candidate has the complete Christian credentials? That all the candidates are flawed? That is exactly the rational that lead me to vote for Obama in the first place! I naievely thought that since republicans will not really end abortion but are just pandering to the pro life constituancy maybe voting democrat would improve other areas.
But you are right about the democrats enabling more abortions. At the time I did not think more enabling could be done. Live and learn I guess. I will never vote democrat again.
But I will not vote republican again either. Well meaning as they may be, their policies will only benifit the rich and well to do and leave the poor and vulnerable by the wayside, which will lead to more poverty, misery, despair and, because of that, more abortions!I do not believe that "getting the government of our backs" and letting the "free market"(aka rich people with money) fix things will work. For the most part the corporatocracy care only about "efficiency" and maximizing profits. They willl continue to outsource jobs and lay people off at the first sign of trouble. If the corporatocracy has its way and achieved the absolute freedom from"government interference" that republicans would give them things will get much worse, wages and benifits lowered, higher unemployment, etc, all the while calling any opposition to such absolute freedon "communism" or "Marxism" The corporatocracy cares nothing for the common good, only its own interests.
Hence the need, I believe, for us to stop settling for the "least bad candidate" and for people like Jamie and myself to demand an end to a situation where we have to sacrifice some principles in order to uphold others. The Obama candidacy has clearly shown this need.
vance
2 years ago
Rob, Lybia is a just war? Now, I am confused. The USA is evil for nation building in Iraq and Afganistan but it is a Saint for getting rid of Gadaffi. The USA is a Saint for wagging war in the Balkans. OH, Now I get it!!! If a Republican President wages war, it is evil BUT when a Marxist Democrat President wages war it is JUST. Man-o-man am I slow.
Rob
2 years ago
I was thinking about some of the commentary I've heard about Libya. Some of the criticisms of Obama have centered around the thought that he waited to long to intervene and many innocents lost their lives. With the premise of preserving life, we destroy life. Perhaps this would fall into the category of a "just war." I agree that none of our military coflicts rise to the level of the loss of life in abortion. But why the tempered response on the loss of life in abortion and decisive military action on something like Libya? I dont' get the sense that the best way to have handled the holocuast during world war II was to hope our politicians get it right some day. Why are we so content to leave the mondern day holcaust of abortion in the hands of our politicians?
austine
2 years ago
Kmiec will not publically repent. It would be too humiliating.
Jamie and others, please vote for the least bad candidate instead of the candidate with all the Christian credentials. We are not in heaven; all the candidates are flawed. Democratic politicians always find ways to allow more abortions; more public funding, positive advertisement, less restrictions, etc.
Jamie
2 years ago
@troisnyx Are you saying the government should not help the poor because if it does then individuals won't help the poor? I fear that I do not have nearly enough faith in the people of this country to fill the void that government would leave. Also spending cuts/tax breaks tend to mostly benefit the very wealthy who have not shown much interest in helping the poor these days.

@Jennifer I am not trying to equate the two other than to say a life is a life is a life. Either you believe that every life is precious and should not be ended unnaturally as per the teachings of the church, or you believe that only the unborn are important and those that have been born are irrelevant and may be bombed, starved, executed.

I agree with roman. There should be a third party that really speaks to our fundamental beliefs and we should find candidates that will uphold all of Christ's teachings and not just those that are politically convenient the way George W. Bush did.

Finally, we need to deal with these perpetual scandals within the Church such as the recent case in Philadelphia if we want the possibility of a Catholic-minded political party. Too many people associate Catholics with child-molestation and we need to change that.
techwreck
2 years ago
I can't agree with the Deacon. Kmiec is responsible for giving scandal to Catholics who are confused about the Church's teaching on the evil of abortion, and he was derelict in his duty in his position of Ambassador for his country. Those are two major mistakes that he made and he is responsible for the damage that they caused.

Having said that, Kmiec should be forgiven for his actions if he shows appropriate remorse, because all of us have acted in ways that injured others or had the potential to injure others. None of us are perfect, but we are all responsible for the harm we do.

Prev12 3 4 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment