Doug Kmiec – A Response to Deacon Keith Fournier
“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position."
Advertisement
MALIBU, CA. (Catholic Online) - Professor Doug Kmiec responded overnight to the first article which I wrote concerning his recent book. He asked that we publish his response with the bold wording set forth below.As we draw closer to this momentous election,there will be more articles in our continuing effort to equip our readers to exercise their "Faithful Citizenship".(Editor)
Here is professor Kmiec's response:
"In his review of my new book entitled "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barrack Obama" (Overlook Press), Deacon Keith Fournier writes with the courage of his convictions that I have asked the wrong question, suggesting that the appropriate inquiry is whether Senator Obama ought to or should receive Catholic support? I have concluded that Senator Obama is indeed worthy of the support of conscientious Catholics. The Deacon dissents. Many of his points are unassailable and once again readers of this site are in his debt for the clarity of his thought. Nevertheless, in positing that the book asks the wrong question, the Deacon obscures the correct answer: namely, after proper discernment and with the right intent, Catholics are free to vote for Obama in good conscience.
I offer these few comments in response to his. In what follows I quote the major argument passages from his essay and beneath in bold explain why at critical points the Deacon’s approach leaves much of our faith needlessly out of reach and applied only hypothetically.So let us begin with the heart of the matter: The Deacon argues: “It is immoral to vote in a manner which fails to protect innocent human persons from being unjustly killed.”
No,it is immoral to vote with that intent. This point is reaffirmed in the American Bishops’ splendid “Call to Faithful Citizenship,” where it is written: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”
The Deacon continues: “Doug and his candidate are right to emphasize that we are our brother’s (and sister’s) keeper, but wrong to then exclude an entire class of brothers and sisters, the unborn, from the protections of the positive law.”
Yes, I am my brother’s and sister’s keeper, I am not, however as a private citizen, their legislator. In voting for a candidate who represents views affecting the totality of the social gospel, I cannot be assumed to materially participate or cooperate in any particular mistaken decision of that candidate – again, absent my intent to share in that mistaken view.
The Deacon then notes that I rely upon the recent letters of Archbishop Charles Chaput and Francis Cardinal George for guidance, and asserts in a rare moment of uncharacteristic intemperance that this reliance is “sophistry.”
Not so, I have relied upon these fine teachers of the faith in order to undertake the proper inquiry into whether there is proportionate reason allowing the choice of a candidate who has an alternative way of promoting human life other than a thus far futile, and in any event, insufficient effort to criminalize some, but not all, abortion practice.
Continuing, the Deacon observes: “Doug maintains that Senator McCain’s position in favor of the overturning of Roe v Wade is simply a ‘Federalist position’ and not a truly Pro-life stance. The Deacon concedes that McCain’s pro-federalism position is less absolute than the Deacon’s own based upon Catholic teaching, but he writes in apology for the weakness of the McCain position: “I know that the reversal of Roe opens up the field to securing protection of the children and will at least slow the shedding of innocent blood while we work on outlawing the act. I think (Doug) does as well but has backed himself into a corner.”
No, the corner we inhabit together as Catholics is one we were consigned to occupy by the Supreme Court’s mistaken jurisprudence and the larger culture’s hardness of heart. Part of the exercise of conscience we are called upon to make in terms of proportionality analysis as we vote necessarily includes an evaluation of which path is more likely to free us from that corner. In other words, we are asked as part of our proportionality inquiry to evaluate the likelihood of positive result in favor of life. Given the length of time Mr. McCain has exercised the levers of legislative power, is it not the least bit disturbing that during that entire almost 30 year period Senator McCain did not offer and actively champion a Human Life Amendment? Indeed, to the ...
"In his review of my new book entitled "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barrack Obama" (Overlook Press), Deacon Keith Fournier writes with the courage of his convictions that I have asked the wrong question, suggesting that the appropriate inquiry is whether Senator Obama ought to or should receive Catholic support? I have concluded that Senator Obama is indeed worthy of the support of conscientious Catholics. The Deacon dissents. Many of his points are unassailable and once again readers of this site are in his debt for the clarity of his thought. Nevertheless, in positing that the book asks the wrong question, the Deacon obscures the correct answer: namely, after proper discernment and with the right intent, Catholics are free to vote for Obama in good conscience.
I offer these few comments in response to his. In what follows I quote the major argument passages from his essay and beneath in bold explain why at critical points the Deacon’s approach leaves much of our faith needlessly out of reach and applied only hypothetically.So let us begin with the heart of the matter: The Deacon argues: “It is immoral to vote in a manner which fails to protect innocent human persons from being unjustly killed.”
No,it is immoral to vote with that intent. This point is reaffirmed in the American Bishops’ splendid “Call to Faithful Citizenship,” where it is written: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”
The Deacon continues: “Doug and his candidate are right to emphasize that we are our brother’s (and sister’s) keeper, but wrong to then exclude an entire class of brothers and sisters, the unborn, from the protections of the positive law.”
Yes, I am my brother’s and sister’s keeper, I am not, however as a private citizen, their legislator. In voting for a candidate who represents views affecting the totality of the social gospel, I cannot be assumed to materially participate or cooperate in any particular mistaken decision of that candidate – again, absent my intent to share in that mistaken view.
The Deacon then notes that I rely upon the recent letters of Archbishop Charles Chaput and Francis Cardinal George for guidance, and asserts in a rare moment of uncharacteristic intemperance that this reliance is “sophistry.”
Not so, I have relied upon these fine teachers of the faith in order to undertake the proper inquiry into whether there is proportionate reason allowing the choice of a candidate who has an alternative way of promoting human life other than a thus far futile, and in any event, insufficient effort to criminalize some, but not all, abortion practice.
Continuing, the Deacon observes: “Doug maintains that Senator McCain’s position in favor of the overturning of Roe v Wade is simply a ‘Federalist position’ and not a truly Pro-life stance. The Deacon concedes that McCain’s pro-federalism position is less absolute than the Deacon’s own based upon Catholic teaching, but he writes in apology for the weakness of the McCain position: “I know that the reversal of Roe opens up the field to securing protection of the children and will at least slow the shedding of innocent blood while we work on outlawing the act. I think (Doug) does as well but has backed himself into a corner.”
No, the corner we inhabit together as Catholics is one we were consigned to occupy by the Supreme Court’s mistaken jurisprudence and the larger culture’s hardness of heart. Part of the exercise of conscience we are called upon to make in terms of proportionality analysis as we vote necessarily includes an evaluation of which path is more likely to free us from that corner. In other words, we are asked as part of our proportionality inquiry to evaluate the likelihood of positive result in favor of life. Given the length of time Mr. McCain has exercised the levers of legislative power, is it not the least bit disturbing that during that entire almost 30 year period Senator McCain did not offer and actively champion a Human Life Amendment? Indeed, to the ...
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 20 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- The New Golden Calf and the Women of a New Babylon. America and Kardashian - Where's the outrage?
- FBI admits to using drones on U.S. soil. What's next armed drones?
- Supreme Court: No, you can't ask for proof of citizenship for voter registration
- What happens when the Culture of Surveillance meets the Culture of Corruption?
- Obama tells Charlie Rose Americans are uninformed on NSA program. So why doesn't he inform us?
- Bombshell: Low-level NSA agents can wiretap anyone, even the president, sans warrant
- PRISM precursor programs sparked concerns, potential resignations under Bush
- Facebook, Microsoft reveal number of government requests for your info, but no details
- Whistle-blower Snowden says Obama can still save face after PRISM debacle
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
No-one Can Change the Truth About Fatherhood. Love Your Father. Be a Good Father Read More
Fall of the Wall of Silence: More on Pope Francis and Reports of a 'Gay Lobby' in the Roman Curia Read More
Courageous Cardinal George of Chicago Defends Marriage, Calls for Public Conversion Read More
Pope Francis Refers to 'gay lobby' inside Vatican Read More
Why Catholics Have Failed Our Culture: The Bottom Line Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Second Corinthians 9:6-11
But remember: anyone who sows sparsely will reap sparsely as ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 112:1-2, 3-4, 9
Alleluia! How blessed is anyone who fears Yahweh, who delights ... Read More
Gospel, Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18
'Be careful not to parade your uprightness in public to attract ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Romuald
June 19: St. Romuald was born at Ravenna about the year 956. In spite ... Read More
Latest Videos
Vatican Museum, Rome - Ceiling and Wall Artwork View Video
Flooding prevents pilgrims from reaching Catholic shrine View Video
Credo Series - Episode 7 View Video
Credo Series - Episode 8 View Video
About 200 people evacuated from the Lourdes Shrine, as floods hit Southern France View Video
Marketplace
The Power of the Rosary
A collection of miraculous personal testimonies and historical ... Read More
First Communion Invitations
Shop for unique custom-printed First Holy Communion invitations. ... Read More
I am encouraged by the dialog. I find it hard to debate the words of a constitutional scholar and his theology is sound. This is good food for thought right now. It is hard as an American to turn the other cheek while this administrations policies continue to put so many people in harms way in favor of big business. So much of what it is doing in the name of our faith is at odds with the churches teachings. May God have mercy on this administration and may we have the courage to do what is right.
The debate over Mr. Kmiec's book and his obsession with Barack Obama "could" go on forever but it "should" not.
It's obvious that this man is more political than he is Catholic. Look, if he gave half as much credence to the teachings of the church leaders and their "followers" and their stance on abortion, especially partial birth and born alive survivors of abortion as he is willing to give Obama and the agenda of his "followers" who want nothing to do with... eliminating abortion on demand, vouchers for non-public school students, secret ballots when voting for/against union membership, or enacting legislation to recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman only there "should" be no question in his catholic mind that his candidate "could" not be considered worthy of his vote. It's that simple and the effort he is putting forth trying to convince us otherwise in itself proves my point.
"Even the elect will be lead astray".
Ben B-
You said "[McCain] will also select a Supreme Court justice that might at least give us a chance of overturning Roe V. Wade, for the first chance at this in 30 years."
That is incorrect. In Planned Parenthood v Casey, 1992, an initial majority of five were poised to overturn Roe v Wade. But then O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined the side that voted to UPHOLD Roe. So you are definitely wrong that we haven't had a chance at this in 30 years.
And while you are right that we would have some chance of overturning Roe v Wade with McCain Supreme Court appointees, it should be pointed out that O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were appointed by Reagan and GHW Bush. So in the past, supposedly pro-life supreme court appointees have failed to overturn Roe v Wade, and have in fact supported it.
So you can certainly understand why some people might be cynical about the likelihood of McCain appointees overturning Roe.
Doug Kmiec wrote:
In my judgment, the position represented by Senator McCain in the 2008 election represents such an inconceivable chain of events that unborn victims could legitimately ask how could an honest heart ever have expected anything favorable to human life to come from it.
I don't understand how he could say "inconceivable chain of events" - other inconceivable events have happened before... as well as "...unborn victims could legitimately ask ...". How does the unborn victim ask anything when not given a life, let alone a voice.
There is no way a true Catholic could or should vote for a candidate who supports not only abortion but infanticide. Obama supports killing babies who survive botched abortions. His record proves this. Also, Obama is a racist. He has used the race card during his campaign several times and now says that if he loses it will be on account of racism, not his stand on the issues. Kmiec can spin things any way he wants. If he supports Obama he is supporting the murdering of not only the unborn but the killing of babies who survive botched abortions and a racist candidate.
I have struggled with the dichotomy laid out in the opinions of Doug Kmiec and Deacon Fournier. In all, the Democratic platform (and its candidate seems so much more Catholic than does the Republican (and its candidate). I am pro-life in my beliefs and it caused me to vote for George W. Bush, who has squandered lives of Americans and Iraqis in such reckless fashion that its unfathomable to me that he could be regarded as pro-life. I then read an article damning Doug Kmiec by Michael Gaynor at http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=080922. The author was so vitriolic that there must be some basic truth in Kmiec's position. Mr. Gaynor's insistence on using Senator Obama's middle name (Hussein), his reference to "drinking the Obama Kool-Aid", and his labelling Obama as a present day Karl Marx all indicate a bigotry that is, put mildly, counter-productive to the author's argument to reasonable Catholics. Gaynor has solidified my support for Obama and the Catholic policies espoused by the Democratic platform and Mr. Kmiec.
I think that the issue of a mal-formed conscience is aptly applied to Mr. Kmiec. However, the true problem that I see is that Mr. Kmiec is aware of the evil of abortion. I can see his reasoning, where the Catholic Church, to this day, is still enduring the evil of the Death Penalty. It bear to reality that perhaps the Church is not the voice of the majority (even though it is the voice of pure reason and morality). The problem, herein, is that even though Doug Kmiec is aware of the "Truth", he has allowed his conscience to be swayed for some reason. Psychology's term for it is cognitive dissonance, where we are willing to justify another person's rights and beliefs in an organization that we detest or strongly disagree with, not because we agree as well, but because we like the other person (probably because they are charismatic). It's similar to why it is that cult leaders and terrorist leaders are rarely ousted by their own (their charisma and earnestness in their efforts cloud the logic and reason of those subjugated by them). It is a form of manipulation, and it is what I fear is the reason many Catholics are standing by Obama (he is very likable, and a model citizen for the poor; he just gets the issues of abortion and gay marriage wrong).
Doug Kmiec is well aware of the Gospel of Life, by Pope John Paul II, as well as many other references of faith defining Catholic stance on abortion. Nothing justifies killing a child (to present alternate situations where the intent of the mother varies is the devil's work of changing darkness into light). It is an issue of severity of sin when a person looks the Church in the face, after having been informed of the Truth, and spitting in it in defiance by saying that it is wrong or doesn't have enough research into the issue. I would not dare to pass judgment on Doug Kmiec; I can only pray for one so deceived. Whatever his motivations, I hope he should understand that he will be accountable for what he utters and what he does when heaven comes. I will pray for him.
I think Mr. Kmiec has now gone too far and am truly suspicious of his motivation and truly think that he has been promised a high ranking position in the Obama government. There is no other explanation for a pro-life person to so vigorously and swiftly defend Mr. Obama in trying to capture that critical Catholic swing vote. His reasoning defies all the recent Bishops statements and the Catechism itself. I continue to pray for his soul and the rest of my fellow Catholics that we see through this shallow rhetoric and vote their conscience which must regard the sanctity of life as our foundation.
Around 4000 babies are killed by surgical abortion each day. People who say that abortion is just one issue among other issues don't recognize how bad abortion is. What they are really saying is "Abortion is bad, but it's not THAT bad." If Obama was against women voting we would not even consider voting for him. Abortion is worse than not allowing women the right to vote. We should not support Obama who believes killing babies is sometimes ok.
Dave S. -
I'll tell you one thing McCain won't do. Sign the FOCA,, repeal the Mexico City agreement, or make me pay for other people's abortions or artificial contraception (this is also against Church doctrine, if you care). He will also select a Supreme Court justice that might at least give us a chance of overturning Roe V. Wade, for the first chance at this in 30 years. He will also use the bully pulpit and participate in Right to Life rally's instead of NARAL ralies. He will also sign a bill against late term abortion (unlike Clinto who vetoed it), and if we are lucky enough to get Justices lke Thomas, Alito, Roberts or Scalia from McCain (remember, those are justices Obama would have or did vote against) it just might be upheld. I could go on, but I really doubt it matters to you.