Kmiec says he will change his 'pro-Obama' position if the Pope tells him to do so

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 55

Prof. Douglas Kmiec

Camarillo, Calif., Nov 15, 2008 / 06:11 am (CNA).- Doug Kmiec, a pro-life Catholic who vocally supported President-elect Barack Obama, defended his position in a lecture Tuesday at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California. The law professor told attendees that if Pope Benedict told him that his support for the pro-abortion politician was out of line with the Church’s teachings, he would stand by the Magisterium.

About 30 to 40 protesters against Kmiec’s speech stood in silence outside the seminary gates, an attendee who requested anonymity told CNA. Inside the seminary, nearly 300 people listened to Kmiec’s speech, the Thirteenth Annual Newman C. Eberhardt lecture.

Father Eberhardt was a long-time history professor at the seminary.

“Several of his students wished that he could be there to demolish Dr. Kmiec’s presentation point by point,” the attendee told CNA, claiming that the setting of the event “causes scandal to the faithful and sows confusion throughout the non-Catholic community.”

The attendee only took notes at the presentation because recording the lecture was prohibited.

Monsignor Craig Cox, the seminary rector, greeted the audience and gave a benediction. Father Richard Benson, academic dean and chair of moral theology, introduced Prof. Kmiec with a description of the “angst of the seminary administration” in inviting Kmiec.

The priest reportedly said that the administration decided to invite Kmiec in order to present differing views for consideration.

Kmiec began his lecture by referring to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s 2004 letter to the U.S. bishops which advised that a vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate can be permitted “in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and a former official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, then went on to explain how he came to support Obama’s candidacy.

An early supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Kmiec said he was disappointed that, in his view, the Republican Party rejected Romney’s candidacy on the basis of his Mormon religion. Not finding the views of the eventual Republican nominee Sen. John McCain consistent with Romney’s positions, he looked elsewhere.

Kmiec told how he was first drawn to Obama during his “Call to Renewal” speech. Attending a meeting which included Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the famous evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, he told how he became convinced that while Obama had no religious upbringing, he is a religious man.

According to the lecture attendee who spoke to CNA, Kmiec described how his decision to support Obama included weighing the candidate’s platform with Catholic social teaching. He became part of Obama’s Catholic outreach program to secure the Catholic vote, which has consistently sided with the winner of the past ten presidential elections.

The Obama campaign’s Catholic outreach was described as “tightly organized” at the national, state, and local levels.

Kmiec noted that he had pressed Obama concerning what have been perceived to be his gaffes on abortion issues.

Questioning Obama about comments about not wanting his daughter “punished with a baby,” Obama told Kmiec “That’s not it.” The candidate then explained his belief that a child is indeed a punishment for many who do not have the economic and social support to care for a child.

Explaining his belief that the legal fight against abortion is lost, Kmiec advocated reducing the numbers of abortions through economic means and fully informing women about abortion. He also added that Obama had worked for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a primary vehicle for Catholic charity.

Concluding his remarks, Kmiec said he would always “bear the scar” of being refused Communion at Mass for the Catholic business leaders’ group Legatus, where a deacon believed his support for Obama should have barred him from receiving. Kmiec related how he loved his faith and didn’t know what he would do without it.

In audience questions following the lecture, a priest proposed a hypothetical situation in which Kmiec has a telephone conversation with Pope Benedict. The priest asked whether Kmiec would ask for further explanation of the letter to the U.S. bishops concerning proportionality in voting decisions.

Kmiec stated that if the Pope said, “Doug, you’re wrong,” he would then have to tear out the first 174 pages of his pro-Obama book and stand with the Magisterium.

Comments: 55

Subscriber comments:

Published by: ssoldie
Brainerd, Mn. America 03/23/2009 12:11 PM EST

Doug Kmiec dosen't need the Holy Father to say anything to him, thats a cop-out. All he needs to do is admit he is and was wrong, then get to confessionm

Published by: J L Selby
Newark, Ohio USA 12/04/2008 09:28 PM EST

I was a Democrat before I became a serious Catholic, and I soon came to the conclusion that there was no way I could remain both Catholic and Democrat, and the issue of abortion was only one of the many issues I considered. Even if one were to set aside the issue of abortion, how can a Catholic justify voting Democrat? For one thing, I don't think Democrats care about the poor or value them as people. They're more inclined to treat the poor like animals by forcing birth control and sterilizations as a solution to their poverty. Democrats, for the most part, have distain for the "common man" and for the traditional family. They don't want the average man to have freedom, because then they couldn't be as easily controlled. When Democrats extol freedom, they are usually talking about the freedom of sexual license without having to suffer any of the consequences. They have been called the party of death, and it is a title well deserved. From my experience, conservative Catholics, who are usually Republican, are much more generous with their money and time than the cafeteria Catholics who are usually Democrats. So, while the Republic party isn't perfect, it's the only choice of a Catholic today in the USA.

Published by: Ann
Indiana 11/30/2008 09:54 PM EST

I disagree with Paul from 'Pro-Life Catholics for Choice.' While more could have been done by the Bush Admin, so many things were blocked by pro-choice congressmen during the Bush admin. It is not all about the President, and various of his proposals & initiatives were rejected. Obama is clearly the most radical, pro-death candidate ever in this country, and he is totally committed to mandating the deaths of the unborn. Any group that calls itself 'Pro-Life Catholics for Choice' is already messed up. You are either for life or not. You are for God or against Him. It sounds like you may be like our pseudo-Catholic VP to be Biden in that you are personally against murder but won't do anything to prevent others from committing it. As such, I don't see how you can call yourself a Catholic. It is because of such reasoning and such complacency that we are in the mess we find ourselves in.

Published by: Amber-a convert
Colorado 11/26/2008 05:34 PM EST

Bush turned Kmiec down for an appointment to the Supreme Court. Does that answer any questions as to why he is supporting Obama?

Published by: James
Tampa/FL 11/23/2008 07:28 PM EST

To Paul from Belmont and like minded individuals, just beware of the statisticians and the statistics you trust. Recall, many contraceptives are abortifacients and promotion of contraception is also mortal sin. Should the number of real abortions drop, we can all agree to praise God, but please don't be fooled with lying statistics and statisticians. There are truly countless uncounted abortions due to the contraceptives that are leading us further down a self destructive path. Peace all and may Obama be blessed and may we all experience a deeper conversion to the love of Jesus our Lord.

Published by: Paul Bradford
Belmont/MA/USA 11/21/2008 04:24 PM EST

For Debbie Nieport:

If, as you fear, the abortion rate goes up under an Obama administration you will get my apology and his opponent in 2012 will get my vote. But I'm confident that it will go the other way because Obama understands human nature better than the Pro-Life presidents (who were in office for 28 of the past 36 years) that preceded him did.

American women in 2008 are not going to be told what to do with their bodies. That's not something I think SHOULD be true. That's a simple fact. A woman decides what she's going to do about her own pregnancy. That's not a matter of morality -- that's just an acknowledgement of who has the power, and the power belongs to the woman.

Since women have the power, those of us who believe in human rights for the unborn have to address the ones with the power. But for 36 years the Pro-Life movement has largely passed up the chance to try and influence women to do the right thing and have, instead, tried to wrestle the power away from them.

Bush used that strategy for eight years and we didn't get a significant drop in abortions.

Mothers are capable of making moral decisions about their own children, but in more than a million cases a year they've made the immoral decision. Some think this is a reason to deny women the right to choose, I think it simply shows the urgency of discussing 'intrinsic evil' with ordinary women instead of politicians.

Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Published by: Mike
New Mexico 11/20/2008 07:46 AM EST

For those that think most of the posters are being too hard on Professor Kmiec and wonder what Jesus would say here is one thing Jesus said about children:

"It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones."

If this doesn't make clear what Jesus would say about murdering babies I don't know what will.

Published by: AJ
VINELAND/NJ/USA 11/20/2008 07:25 AM EST

For faithful Catholics this past Presidential election presented, really, no choice. Let us all stop the self-justifying "careful search of conscience" baloney and admit that most of us voted for this or that candidate based more on self interest and less on Church teaching.

Published by: Kelsi
Victoria, TX 11/19/2008 10:09 AM EST

To those who voted for Obama claiming that he would actually reduce the number of abortions, I have a question for you. If Obama really believed his rhetoric about wanting to decrease the overall number, why would there be any need for the FOCA??

I can't understand how this makes sense to ANYONE! If there wasn't going to be a need for abortions under the Obama administration, why on Earth would we need to sign a bill that would make them more available? That does not even make a reasonable amount of sense.

Someone explain.

Published by: Joseph
Terre Haute/IN 11/19/2008 09:19 AM EST

No one can judge the state of another's soul. One cannot say whether Prof. Kmiec or Mr. Obama are in or out of the state of grace. That would be judging in the sense that Our Lord condemns. But, as human persons and disciples of Christ, we are required to make judgments as to actions: which are good, and which are evil. We don't make these decisions; we are called to discover the truth of what is good or evil, whether we like or not. Jesus Himself tells us, because He speaks through His Church ("He who hears you, hears Me.") The Church cannot have made it more clear that it is material cooperation with evil, and therefore immoral (otherwise known as a sin) to vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion. Pope John Paul II makes this crystal clear in Evangelium Vitae. Mr. Obama has stated publicly, that the first thing he'll do as President is sign FOCA and reverse the Mexico City Policy. I fail to see how this can be reconciled with the moral imperative not to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Read FOCA or read the analysis of it on the US bishops' website. It will remove all restrictions on abortion in this country. Obama has also publicly stated that increased public sex education and contraception/sterilization will reduce abortions. Read Humanae Vitae. Therefore, I can logically only conclude that Mr. Obama's plan for reducing abortions is making it so there are no babies left to kill. I am judging actions and positions, not a person's soul.

Published by: Debbie Nieport
Dayton, OH 11/18/2008 11:30 PM EST

Paul from Belmont, I think you are mistaken. This election did have a candidate and we now have a president-elect who seeks to INCREASE abortion and has a plan to do just that. Pres-Elect Obama seeks to seeks to eliminate all restrictions to obtaining abortion and will do so through various executive orders and eventually by signing into law FOCA. One cannot reduce abortions by promoting abortions.

And Scott in Ill...speaking the truth is not judging the individual but the words and actions...remember love the sinner, but hate the sin...one can judge words and actions without judging the individual...this is what our faith calls us to do to love one another enough to speak the truth.

Published by: James
Tampa/FL 11/18/2008 09:43 PM EST

To those who feel that there is only hatred and judgment from the majority of Catholics: Read our comments carefully one more time. When a fellow Catholic is promoting views contrary to our Lord as does Mr. Kmiec in his vocal public support of Barrack Obama, it is imperative that we objectively look at the record and discern what is Christ's teaching and what is not. Yes, we must make a judgment on the actions; this must be done so we ourselves are not led astray. This does not mean we are judging the person's soul as the Lord will for all of us. This is not hatred. My love is for all people and so I must stand on the Rock of Peter and proclaim the Gospel and defend life against men like Barrack Obama and Douglas Kmiec. I pray for the conversions of their souls and for my own conversion, but we can not sit back silently while they distort the Gospel of our Lord and Savior who died for all.

Published by: Martti
Finland 11/18/2008 02:19 PM EST

Where is love in these comments? I see only hate, blatant irony and hasty judgement. What would Jesus say?

Published by: Delia Mendoza
woodside,New York 11/18/2008 06:51 AM EST

Amen to all the thoughtful comments above. The professor doesn't need the Holy Father to tell him how very,very horrifyingly wrong he is. Watch the Apostolate for Family Consecration's Q and A with Cardinal Arinze on You Tube. He suggests to ask a littfle child if killing babies is ok.

Published by: Scott
Chicago, IL USA 11/17/2008 11:20 PM EST

Rate: Regular

As a vehemently pro-life practicing catholic who voted for Obama, I am truly embarassed by the virulent and judgmental comments above. If Mr. Kmiec came to his position (as I did) through faithful reflection (as the Church requires)who are any of you to question him?

You should all spend less time feeling self-congratulatory and trade your holier-than-thou attitudes for some good old fashioned humility!

Judge not, lest you be judged!

Published by: Debbie Nieport
Dayton, OH 11/17/2008 11:18 PM EST

Rate: Excellent

I had the opportunity to attend a round table discussion with Doug Kmiec when he came to Dayton to influence the Catholic vote. The event was not publicized and there were only about a dozen folks in attendance. After Kmiec gave what appears to be his "How I came to Obama" conversion there was a free exchange of thoughts and ideas. I along with another friend (we both work for a local Pregnancy Resource Center) shared that neither of us could find any good thing Obama was offering that would trump his extreme abortion agenda. Kmiec was unmoved and resorted to the we can agree to disagree discourse. When I asked him about Obama's determination to sign FOCA, Kmiec voiced very strongly "That will never happen!" "How is that?" I asked. "Why, I won't let it!" to which I replied, "And how do you propose to stop it?" Kmiec's response, "Why it hasn't passed the Congress and I would never vote for a congressman that would vote for it!" To which I responded, "Doug, I'm a little confused, you would never vote for a congressman that would pass FOCA; but you would vote for a president that would sign it! That doesn't make sense to me!" He had no response. I came to the conclusion that Doug Kmiec has been overwhelmed by the Obama-fog, he sees this man as "transcending" race, age, gender, polictical parties, etc. In actuality, we need to pray for Doug Kmiec, he has been taken in by his own rhetoric and sense of grandiose.

Published by: Paul Bradford
Belmont/MA/USA 11/17/2008 09:23 PM EST

Rate: Good

I just finished reading the 38 comments on this page. 37 were anti-Kmiec, 1 (from H.J. D"cruz of Pakistan) was unintelligible. So, it looks like I get to be the first to show sympathy for the professor.

I'm a Pro-Life Catholic who assists at Mass every Sunday, is active in his parish and is well informed on the doctrines of the Church. I also voted for Obama, so this discussion is a discussion about me as well as Kmiec.

If this had been an election between a candidate who wanted to reduce abortions (and who had a workable plan for doing it) and another candidate who wanted to INCREASE abortions (and who had a feasible plan for doing THAT) it would make sense to state that the voters who supported the pro-abortion candidate were in material cooperation with intrinsic evil.

This isn't the situation we had this year. This year we had an election between two candidates who both want to reduce abortions but who have different ideas about how to get it done. One, McCain, thinks the best thing to do is to keep trying to get Roe v Wade overturned. The other, Obama, thinks we'd have better success through education, support for mothers and improved health care.

Who is right? Conservatives think McCain is right, liberals think Obama is right; but the determination of who is right is a political determination, not a moral one.

Catholics need to agree on the goal (an end to abortion) but we can disagree about the best approach to reaching that goal.

Published by: R.C.
Atlanta/GA/USA 11/17/2008 05:31 PM EST

Wouldn't it be interesting if the Pope took him up on it?

And "Papa Ratzi" might possibly do it, after Obama and the Democrats get the ball rolling toward passage of FOCA.

The Servant of the Servants of God is not above calling a layperson, pivotal position or no.

But it's a bit churlish, all the same, of Kmiec to ask it of the Holy Father, whose calendar is probably full enough already.

Oh, well. Maybe Romney would have made a better GOP candidate. But what lengths Kmiec has traveled, to play out a case of sour grapes!

Published by: Mary Patricia Cothrun
Texarkana, AR 11/17/2008 04:49 PM EST

Mr. Kmise should not have been allowed to speak at the seminary in Camarillo, Ca. I have close to the seminary at one time. I am glad he was refused communion by the decon. To me he is not a Catholic.

Published by: Dan
Santa Fe/NM/US 11/17/2008 04:45 PM EST

Yes terrible that this silly law professor can act this way---and in public no less. Where did shame go to? Is his own father alive to take him over his knee? Probably a nice man, but no sense of who God is. Oh well, the age we live in--the rude awakening for ALL of us not just the blind,is frightful and on its way.

Published by: Fr. Pete Calabrese
Lewiston NY 11/17/2008 03:13 PM EST

While I agree the Pope should not have to respond personally to every rebellious illogical (I wanted Romney, didn't see him in McCain, so I chose Obama. (Huh?)) I would love to see it happen. Can anyone make that happen? Aposotlic Nuncio, where are you?

Published by: Toni
Tacoma, WA 11/17/2008 02:57 PM EST

A call from the Pope to Kmeic saying "Doug you're wrong" would be redundant. We have two thousand years of magesterial Church teaching saying "Doug you're wrong." One would guess "Doug" doesn't do much reading or listening either if he's attending the ever faithful Legatus meetings. Time for our Bishops to start manning up and publicly reprimanding the politians, professors. experts, authors et al who are leading the People of God astray.

Published by: Chris
Rome GA USA 11/17/2008 02:26 PM EST

Did anyone see this easter egg?
"The candidate then explained his belief that a child is indeed a punishment for many who do not have the economic and social support to care for a child."

Obama actually restated this whole "punished with a baby thing." See, he is pro-eugenics.

Published by: rita
houston/tx/usa 11/17/2008 02:01 PM EST

Bishops have already told Mr. Kmiec he was wrong--why would one believe the "Bishop of Rome" telling Mr. Kmiec would make any difference? Further, Mr. Kmiec admits the Holy Father has said only “in the presence of proportinate reasons” could one vote for a pro abotion candidate. The statement seems pretty clear. What could a rational person
unearth in 2008 proportinate to nearly 4,000 murders (procured abortions)every day in the US alone? How about another solution, Mr. Kmiec, show your good will by writing the Holy Father and ask him.

Published by: Steve
Boston/MA 11/17/2008 01:53 PM EST

This fellow is confused beyond belief. First he says he supported Mitt Romney. He must not be aware that Romney issued the only executive order legalizing "gay Marriage", ordered Catholic Chartieis to place adoptive children with gay parents, ordered Catholic Hospitals to issue abortion inducing drugs and raised funds for Planned Parenthood. Now he says Obama "had no religious upbringing" which is also false since as a child in indonesia obama attended Muslim madrassas, a fact easilt researched on the Internet. This fellow is either dishonest or amazingly casual in his selection of a political candidate. he certaily can't claim mto be pro-life.

Published by: James Stagg
Atmore, AL, USA 11/17/2008 12:16 PM EST

What arrogance! It would seem to me that it would take JC Himself to bring this man to his (Catholic) senses!

Published by: Ken Ryan
San Diego/CA/USA 11/17/2008 11:11 AM EST

Giving this hypocrite any ink is wrong. He has done serious harm in his blatant opposition to the US Bishops and pro life that we should no longer care about what he thhinks until he repents and apologises.
This is not an apology.

Published by: Terri
Old Orchard Beach, Maine 11/17/2008 11:01 AM EST

If he "will stand with the Magisterium" then do it. He Doesn't need the Pope to remind you. This isn't rocket science.

Published by: Jack Ferguson
Houston, TX USA 11/17/2008 10:58 AM EST

Doug Kmiec should not be refered to as a "Pro-Life" Catholic. He is as Pro-Life as Biden and Kerry, who are Pro-Death. Please do not refer to these men as "Catholic." They do not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Published by: George Alexa
Fairfax Station, VA, USA 11/17/2008 10:13 AM EST

I loved the hypothetical phone conversation presented at the end of the news. I have a difficult time with Catholics who just don't get it! I am not as educated as is Kmiec, but I understand what the Church teaches. And to think that Kmiec worked for Obama to get the Catholic vote...won't he have to pay dearly for leading them astray?

Published by: Daniel Costello
Orange Park, Fl, USA 11/17/2008 08:24 AM EST

Why does this man need an engraved comment? Aren't the statements of the Pope and the bishops enoough? Amazing!

Published by: Sarah
Zimmerman, MN, USA 11/17/2008 08:19 AM EST

So, does it not matter to Professor Kmiec at all that many bishops in our own country clearly warned voters that voting for Obama--or for any pro-abortion candidate--would be a sin if a pro-life alternative was available? It's not being a "single-issue voter"; it's being an "overriding-issue voter." No Catholic--and no Christian, for that matter--can vote for a pro-abortion candidate in good conscience--especially when he has alternatives who would NOT try to tear down any and all pro-life legislation across the country by executive order.

Published by: Lisa
Lexington, KY 11/17/2008 07:22 AM EST

Oh how I wish that Pope Benedict WOULD reach across from Rome and lead this sheep who has gone astray back into the fold of obedience to the Magisterium, which is TRUE freedom!

However, what Kmiec doesn't understand is that the Pope HAS already spoken to him, via the voice of the Church and her bishops. Kmiec is a wellmeaning man but who has let his head and heart be turned. I pray for his soul.

Published by: H.J. D"cruz
Karachi Pakistan 11/17/2008 03:52 AM EST

The Pope is there as moral authority to guide and not to impose.The professor should change everthing that is good for the family and society generally.
Sometimes lay people can be more succesful in changing things from bad to good.

Published by: Alan Stone
Fredericksburg/VA/USA 11/16/2008 10:17 PM EST

This is exactly how children act when they know they've done something wrong. Christ chastised the people around him when they cried out for a sign. So now Kmiec states he just needs to hear the Pope say it. How about the statements and Catechism? Isn't that a statement enough for him? Someone of his educational background shouldn't require it to be spelled out for him.

Published by: James
Tampa/FL 11/16/2008 07:54 PM EST

It is absolutely tragic that Mr. Kmiec needs the Pope to tell him that his support for Barrack Obama is wrong. The blood of more than four million innocent children will be on any informed voter who supported Barrack Obama. Who can not know that Barrack promised us he would support abortions and that one of his first acts will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. What more do you need to know Mr. Kmiec? Really, what more do you need to know? Lord have mercy on us, especially your servant Mr. Kmiec.

Published by: Robert Lockwood
Lafayette, CA 11/16/2008 07:42 PM EST

It is telling that Mr. Kimec thinks of himself responsible only to the Pope. It was clearly stated from several sources that NOTHING overides or is equal to the abortion issue. Like most people of this ilk their positions are what makes them feel good, not what the truth is.

Published by: Steve
MEdford, OR 11/16/2008 12:24 PM EST

Although his understanding or his public confession of his understanding of the faith, concerning the authinticity of the authority and wisdom of the church comes a little late.The Pope should call him soon. He has left an opening that can save his eternal soul.

Published by: Rob Kaiser
La Habra, CA 11/16/2008 02:29 AM EST

Wow! To expect a personal rebuke of the pope. Mr. Kmiec certainly has a high opinion of himself. Not a priest nor his pastor nor a bishop nor his bishop, not an official response from the Vatican, but only a response from the pope himself would change his mind.

Can I do that, too? Can I pick my favorite disagreement and then say I'll change my mind if the pope tells me to?

I suspect, like Fr. Bourgeois, should there actually be a calling to task, that Mr. Kmiec would continue in his dissent.

Published by: Tony Arden
CA USA 11/15/2008 08:34 PM EST

Doug Kmiec, grow up. You're acting like a typical adolescent liberal.
I recommend a sincere examination of conscience. If you still believe you're intellectually superior to Church teaching, please consider exorcism.

Published by: Ross Caughell
Fresno CA 11/15/2008 04:59 PM EST

How dare he abandon his mission? How dare he wiggle out of helping elect the most pro-death president in our history. Where is his resolve to hold President-elect Obama and his administration to reducing abortion?

Published by: Barb
Indiana 11/15/2008 04:55 PM EST

I pity those who refuse to accept the decrees of the ordinary magisterium and demand that they deserve a personal message from the pope himself in order to obey church laws.

It also seems a bit hubristic for him to declare the war against legalized abortion lost and hence over. It will be over when abortion is once again illegal everywhere in the world, not one moment sooner. If it takes fighting till doomsday then so be it.

We were told to fight the good fight in season and out.

Fiat Voluntas Tua

Published by: Mary
Fort Worth, TX USA 11/15/2008 03:58 PM EST

Kmiec sounds like someone who has not been properly catechized. Or like so many Democrats, party comes before faith or morals.

Published by: Maryanne Leonard
Westlake Village, California 11/15/2008 02:50 PM EST

I don't believe that when Cardinal Ratzinger made the statement Kmiec is leaning on, that he meant that people were to discount fervent pro-abortion views and give more weight to other considerations. I think he was both trying to stay out of American politics and was referring to areas of equally important moral consideration. I do not believe he was referring to things such as being a great speaker or seeming to offer some vague economic plan of change, hope, or racial deliverance. Adolph Hitler was a powerful speaker who spoke in vague terms of all of the above.

Published by: Laurence Casey
Amarillo, TX USA 11/15/2008 02:07 PM EST

The Magisterium is crytal clear that abortion is evil.

Supporting FOCA is the total opposite of "fully informing women about abortion"

Published by: Ann
Tucson, Az USA 11/15/2008 12:29 PM EST

Further, Kmiec is mistaken about his idea that if the Pope tells him you're wrong he would stand with the Magisterium. Any such command by the Pope would not be the Magisterium speaking. It would be a matter of discipline. In fact the Magisterium has already spoken on the issue and Kimiec should be able to integrate that teaching with proportionate reasons thinking.

Published by: ann
tucson, Az, USA 11/15/2008 12:24 PM EST

The problem with Kmeic position, is that he misunderstands the idea that one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate with proportionate reasons. The bishops did not say, but what Kmiec being the intelligent lawyer should know, is that principle only comes into play when the pro-abort candidate is being compared to an equally viable candidate who is equally or more extremely pro-abortion or pro any of the other non negotiable life issues e.g ESCR.

It is then that one can compare the positions of the candidates on the important social issues, e.g. the economy or social services. Had McCain been equally pro- abortion or pro-ESCR and he was not, then Obama may have been a moral choice. That was not the case any law school professor worth his logic should know that.

Published by: Virginia Hoyns
Flushing, New York 11/15/2008 11:49 AM EST

Just how important do you think you are professor. You will be squeeling at the barn door at the end.

Published by: Dan
Santa Fe/NM/US 11/15/2008 11:00 AM EST

Doug you're wrong. So again, for my simple mind, you are saying abortion is OK for women carrying a baby in womb because of economic and social supports are deemed lacking. I thought that was the Planned Parenthood response to our Pro-Life arguement all along? So life begins at conception and most scientist now agree to a larger extent, God gives that child a soul which we as Catholics know to be true, but it's OK for a politican to undo all the pro-life measures of the last 30 years (he has much work to do)because he believes economic and/or social concerns trump the protection of that defenseless life? Oh right, because our new president 'says' he will vote for 'other' measures that you deem good its fine to continue the killing, even now make it easier, give our Catholic tax dollars to this cause, and also lets promoted this killing worldwide via funding and other assistance. Yeah, now that you put it that way it's painfully clear who your master is.

Published by: P. Minnis
Yorktown/VA/USA 11/15/2008 10:39 AM EST

Where does someone develop such illogical reasoning. His comment about Obama's "punishment" statement provides no justification for thinking Obama is concerned about reducing abortions. 95% of all people having children cannot afford them. That is not an excuse for abortion. It is an opportunity for the person to have the child and grow up, instead of killing the baby and inflicting mental damage of herself. He ignored Obama's support for letting living aborted babies die. Does he seriously think Obama will require women to learn about abortion before getting one. No, he said he will overturn the minimal restrictions that are in place at both the state and federal levels. This man is delusional, if he really thinks Obama will help alleviate abortions. Either that or he is lying to himself. Obama worked for the CCHD. Yes, so did ACORN. That is an irrelevant statement. There are many ways to diminish poverty, some better than others. Government redistribution of wealth has proven to be no better than less direct methods such as letting people develop their talents and businesses and take responsibility for their lives.

Published by: Jeff Johnson
Collegeville, Mn 11/15/2008 10:18 AM EST

This news item makes me sick to my stomach, or maybe I'm feeling a broken heart.

It is heartbreaking that Kmiec was given a venue for his outrageous stance in a seminary of all places.

It is heartbreaking that any Catholic would give up on the war for life, and call the battle over abortion lost.

It is heartbreaking to see any intellectual rely on the glittering rationalizations of the mind instead of the truths of the heart.

Should Kimiec wait for our Pope to tell him his book is evil? No, the folly and harm of his thinking would be taken care of if he attended a single late term abortion, and smelled the blood.

May God help this confused and increasingly lost country.

Published by: BenB.
LA,CA,USA 11/15/2008 09:35 AM EST

Will you quit referring to Kmiec as pro-life! He supports the most radical pro-abortion candidate in history. And he supported Romney, perhaps the worst candidate from a Catholic perspective because of his immigration and torture policiies. I have stopped my donations to the archdiocese. Perhaps the seminary will invite Kmiec back when Obama expands stem cell destruction or reverses the Hyde amnedment. But he'll probably be too busy with his judgeship.

Published by: C McD.
Boston, MA USA 11/15/2008 09:27 AM EST

Having seen Doug Kmiec several times in past years on TV articulately taking what seemed to be a pro-life position, I was shocked to learn that he had joined the Obama campaign. His subsequent explanations seemed naive at best. Now when he says that the legal fight is lost, and especially when he says that Obama worked for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (meaning his work for ACORN, it seems disingenuous. I wish someone with connections would ask the Holy Father to have that telephone conversation with him to call his bluff and to end the scandal he has created.

Published by: Manny
USA 11/15/2008 09:25 AM EST

Professor Doug Kmiec is not a true pro-life advocate, he is just pro-himself. You see, he is not really defending president-elect Obama, he is defending his own pride. This pseudo-intellectuals will never apologize no matter how blatant, obtrusive and outrageous their position. For the very first article of their creed is: "I am never wrong." They will even defend as suitable the statement: "I never tell the truth".

Published by: Peadar Ban
Nashua 11/15/2008 08:19 AM EST

He needs the Pope? If his own rather well developed intellect can't tell him. If his bishop and a couple of hundred other bishops can't tell him....

He bears a scar? He is alive to do so.

Before us we have a perfect example of two things, Pride and Invincible Ignorance

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com