'How we Govern Ourselves.' Obama 2012 Launched: Should Catholics Support Him?

By Keith A. Fournier
4/6/2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Obama 2012 has been launched. Should Catholics Support Him? The answer should be a resounding No!

I write as a private citizen who is a Catholic. I write because I am deeply concerned about the state of the Nation I love. I write because I believe this is the most important election of my lifetime. There is too much at stake. Politics really is "how we govern ourselves." As the Obama 2012 Video claims, it begins with us! As for the re-election of President Obama Obama in 2012, the question has now been asked, Should Catholics Support Him? The answer should be a resounding No!

President Obama has launched his re-election campaign

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - On Monday, April 4, 2011, President Barack Obama announced his re-election campaign with a You Tube video and massive email blast. The title of the video was "It Begins with us." It presented a cross section of supporters who pledged their support. For example, there is a young man who was not able to vote in 2008 but will work to re-elect him; an Hispanic family seeking opportunities to live the American dream; and a white Southerner who doesn't agree with everything the President has done but will support him.

The re-election campaign video used the recycled language of the first campaign. It was a laid back but professionally done piece. Clearly, it is only the first step in what will become a massive and well-funded effort to re-elect this President. Toward the end of the video a statement is made by a woman supporter, "Politics is how we govern ourselves."

Because I believe this claim, I write this article. I write without using my clerical title, lest anyone claim I am trying to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. I could not and do not attempt to do so. I write as a private citizen who is a Catholic. I write because I am deeply concerned about the state of the Nation I love. I write because I believe this is the most important election of my lifetime.

This will be the first of many articles I will write to oppose the re-election of this President. I hope to be able to support an alternative candidate and will be closely watching as alternative candidates emerge, in either major party or in third parties. Efforts to somehow "divorce" social and economic issues will be exposed by my "pen" for the compromise that they really represent. I will only support a candidate who understands why these two can never be separated.

In the "Afterword" of a book entitled "Can a Catholic Support Him?" written to endorse the candidacy of Barack Obama in 2008 and persuade fellow Catholics to do the same, the current Ambassador to Malta, Doug Kmiec wrote: "Barack Obama has my vote. Your only duty is to cast your own in good conscience. As a Catholic and as an American, you may do so in perfect freedom. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise".

I published a series of articles back then opposing Ambassador Kmiec's support of candidate Obama. About his claim in the "Afterword" I wrote "Make no mistake; this is a moral claim. It uses phrases like "good conscience" and "perfect freedom", which speak to the morality of human action and the acting person. Consciences are "good" when they are properly formed in the truth which then leads the person to do what is good.

Freedom "perfects" (completes) a human person only when it is exercised in accordance with the truth and furthers what is truly good" Back then I personally told Doug back that he had asked the wrong question. The real question was then - and is now - SHOULD a Catholic support him. Then - and even more clearly now after three years of his Presidential leadership - the answer is an unequivocal and unqualified "NO."

Ambassador Kmiec purported to make a "moral" argument for voting for Obama. He was the "Catholic scholar" they used to win Catholics to the Obama candidacy. They had a "Catholic problem" because their candidate had promised to sign the so called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) into law as soon as he was elected. So the candidate Obama called abortion a "moral issue" and made noises about making the prevalence of abortion less "necessary."

Doug Kmiec made self contradicting arguments to justify voting for the candidate, claiming that that in voting for a candidate who supported an intrinsic evil such as abortion on demand he did not "intend" to support that position. Well, we now all know that what happened has been disastrous to those whom Blessed Teresa rightly called "the poorest of the poor," children in the womb.

He tried to do a "two step" around the obvious contradiction of his position. Purporting to rely on the principle of proportionality, he promoted the error of "proportionalism." The Catholic Catechism put it clearly, "There are certain kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will". (CCC#1761) Our particular "intentions" must be in accord with right reason.

St Paul addressed the early Christians in Rome concerning the idea that evil may be done as long as there is a good intention. "There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just' (Rom 3:8) Catholics are to form their consciences in accordance with what is true and then to act morally, that is to act in accordance with that truth. This is what true freedom is about.

Our Nation has become intoxicated on the wine of a false notion of freedom as a raw power over others who are weaker and a "right" to do whatever one ...

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 125 Comments

Eric Cooper-Meadors
1 year ago
I would like to apologize to all offended for my previous comment i was just outraged at the article. I'm sincerely sorry.
SaraPalen
2 years ago
speaking of marriage between a man and a woman, you might want to check out the duluthnewstribune.com. In the May 1 edition, the day of the Pope's beatification they chose to give the gay agenda an entire page, mostly written by a theology professor who teaches at a Catholic college. It is about how excluding gays from the definiton of marriage is constitutional discrimination. It is very sad indeed. I don not ask you to publish this comment of mine, only to check it out-and most especially to pray for our bishop and the priests in the state of Minnesota to stand strong in defending the faith. Minnesota is a battleground right now.

also, I have gotten some nasty stuff by clicking on your website.
SaraPalen
2 years ago
one more thing. there is no need to separate faith and reason. One can be open minded, but to go so far as to let the brains fall out, now that' getting carried away. If we forget where we came from, we will not know where we are going. or as Ben Franklin would say, it's something like spitting in the wind.
SaraPalen
2 years ago
to continue, did the Pope Benedict say that if we annul the fundamental principle of natural moral law the very democratic order itself would be profounly undermined at its foundations; or was that one of the founding fathers that spoke these words. Who was it that said our rights to life liberty and the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim them under charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings-(not the Pope). I may be simple and unlearned, but a free woman who knows and loves her rights will not trade the sword of Truth for a baser metal, however emblazoned with the tinsel of sophistry.No, I will promote a good and wise government that will secure my rights. Should positive law be separated from the natural law (as the deacon has stated so many times) as in the case of killing innocent human beings, sanctioned by our president? This reduces to brute force all the rights of man.
Our current president has reduced one of the most sacred relations of life, discarded to the back alley-the modern tar baby in the wood pile, referred to as a punishment and a mistake. He is complicit in a national crime and I, as a citizen and Catholic will not be voting for such a promoter of this "anarchic freedom". A nation that kills its children, the poorest of the poor, Andrew has no hope. ...By the way who is this agnostic author that wrote the constitution?
SaraPalen
2 years ago
I do admit there is much I need to read up on, especially about the Splendor of Truth, but didn't those Protestants have some truth in what they were saying? Would truth indicate there are some absoulutes? Weren't they on to something when they talked of Nature and of Nature's God? Although my faith is weak, nontheless, what my faith says about natural law is common ground for people of many faiths and some with no faith at all.my faith says respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of a moral legitimacy of every authority. By flouting them or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims. my faith says natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie; the natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man because it is human reason ordaining him to do good, forbidding him to sin. But Pope Benedict also said in 2009 that "strictly speaking these human rights are not truths of faith even though they are discoverable and indeed come to full light in the message of Christ who reveals man to himself. They recieve further confirmation from faith. However, as we must that the Church's actions in promoting human rights is therefore supported by rational reflection in such a way that these rights can be presented to all people of good will independantly of any religious affiliation they may have."
Andrew
2 years ago
I'm sorry SaraPalen, I forgot that truth threaten your reasoning. Yes, religion is and always has been a part of culture and thought but that doesn't change the fact that the man who wrote our constitution was agnostic. Regardless, the framers of the constitution who were religions were Protestant. Research these things and open up your mind. Faith is belief. Stop thinking that you need hard evidence to support your belief in God and the church.
SaraPalen
2 years ago
yep, sure, that's what they were thinking when they wrote the Declaration, the Constitution and all the amendments. Nope, Christianity had no significant impact on it at all. I mean, they would never have compared the Trinity to our governmental make up or anything like that. and not even when they were debating the 14th amendment about equal protection. I mean the author of that had no clue at all! (And this is why the religion of that original flavoraide drinker, Mr. Jones, should be equal to all else, right, Vance? how could that be wrong, then?). Moral relativism at its finest! Never mind what the others said, you know that Jay guy, and Mr. Wilson, and the rest some like to take out of context to make it look like Christianity had no significant impact to any of the common law in America. Forget about how the law in America was influenced by the great Christian thinkers. And that First Citizen, why that guy knew nothing of natural law and God given rights-rights that come before nations and governments-no impact there. Pshaw on them all in this common era.Yep, when they wrote a document and it said during the year of our Lord it meant diddly squat. Women of America-would you care for Sharia any time soon? all things being equal, of course, then what's the dif?
Andrew
2 years ago
Theresa, firstly, Athiesm is the state-of-mind in which one does not believe in a God and does not follow a beurocratic system of faith therefor; secularism is the practice of directly seperating the beliefs of any Church or creed from the policy of any governing body; and hedonism is a very complex belief (that, by the way, is very uncommon) that, by citing it in your comment, does not add to your argument in any important way... In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush Thomas Jefferson confessed his belif in a God and the fact that he saw Jesus as a great moral teacher, while rejecting the idea that Jesus was of divine creation. Also, Jefferson admitted that he was very critical of the Catholic Church, especially in France (This information from: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.) In 1820, Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams, which suggested that he no longer even belived in a God. Dr. Rush, however, was very different. He was an extemely religious man as you have stated but he was not a founder who shaped much of the early U.S. policy. John Adams, in the words that you have cited as his, is very well speaking on behalf of all religions. Kennedy was never faced with any hot-button Catholic issues durring his Presidency other than ensuring the freedom of all people despite their race, which he campioned as an issue for all Americans despite their religion. So, while religion is an important aspect of American culture and politics, Christianity has no claim of importance over Judaism, Islam or any other religion in our nation. I believe that each American should have the choice of which religion he or she wishes to practice or the choice to practice none at all. Sure, many of our founders practiced some sort of Christianity but that was only because most were from Britain and France. Now, our nation features many religions and creeds so it is important to remember that our nation is a nation that sees all religions as equal.
Pete Brady
2 years ago
2012: Ron Paul for President.
Theresa
2 years ago
So, I wonder, after all the "discussion"of politics and our Catholic faith and morals and going back to the Deacon's Article and Question: 'How we Govern Ourselves.' Obama 2012 Launched: Should Catholics Support Him?"
Should a Catholic support Obama--knowing all we do about his belief system together with his actions as President and before he was President? Is there no one else whom we think would do better than Obama in leading the nation along the lines of christian faith and morals? Should we not take our religion into politics? The atheists, the secularists, the hedonists, and everyone else takes their "religion" into politics. Our Founding Fathers took their religion into the Founding documents: "I am looking with anxiety to see the dawn of primitive Christianity here, where, if it once appears, it will soon beam like the rising sun and restore to her day! 'Thy kingdom come' is therefore my prayer...." Thomas Jefferson. " Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as mankind adopts its principles, and obeys its precepts, they will be wise and happy." (Benjamin Rush) "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all combinations of human society." (John Adams) "Our country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies to the religion of the Gospel, which, I have no doubt, but would be the introduction of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society." Elias Boudinot "Without morals a republic cannot susbsist any length of time...." Charles Carroll. So why is there this pressure to leave our religion out of politics??? (John Kennedy had it totally wrong when he "assured" Americans that he wouldn't let his Catholic faith guide him in his Presidency.)

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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