|
Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama | 
 enlarge | Author: Douglas W. Kmiec
Publisher: PENGU
Category: Book
List Price: $12.00
Buy New: $9.60
You Save: $2.40 (20%)
New (24) Used (7) from $6.60
Rating:  16 reviews
Sales Rank: 92134
Media: Paperback
Edition: Original
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 176
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.3 x 0.6
ISBN: 159020204X
Dewey Decimal Number: 320
EAN: 9781590202043
ASIN: 159020204X
Publication Date: September 15, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Douglas Kmiecs Can a Catholic Support Him? may very well become the most important comprehensive document written to date on American Catholics, abortion, and candidates for public office. Martin Sheen
On April 18, 2008, Douglas W. Kmiec was denied Communion at a Catholic Mass in Westlake, California. Ironically, Kmiec had been invited by a Catholic business group to give a dinner address on the Bishops teaching of Faithful Citizenship. Kmiec had served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for both Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush. But now, he found himself rejected by his faithsimply for endorsing the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama.
In Can a Catholic Support Him?, Kmiec offers us a thoughtful explanation of his rationale. He addresses the difficult questions at the core of his decision: Can a Catholic support a Pro-Choice candidate? Can there be a reverence for life that embraces a larger set of values? How does a Catholic citizen balance his obligations to the Church and to community? In asking these questions, he challenges those whose partisan interests are provoking a false rift between the Catholic Church and the Democratic party.
This inquiry could hardly be more timely. Catholics have been on the side of the top vote-getter in the last nine presidential elections, and make up roughly one fourth of the electorate. This provocative bookat once a legal and religious treatise and a sincere and personal journey of faithwill be an irreplaceable contribution to the conversation, in 2008 and beyond.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 11 more reviews...
 A thoughtful and prayerful refutation of single-issue politics November 11, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Mr. Kmiec's courageous challenge of the single-issue, overturn-Roe litmus test that many Catholics use in deciding who gets their vote is refreshing.
 A Civil Exchange November 4, 2008
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
I recently had an email exchange with Professor Kmiec about his belief that a pro-life Catholic can vote for Senator Obama. I very much disagree with his balancing of abortion vs. other social issues, and we exchanged our views. I think the following may help illustrate that people can disagree civilly and without demonizing those with whom they disagree. Some of the commentary here is rather over the top. I cannot post this without rating the book, but you should be aware that it's artificial because I haven't read it. I may update this review in the future after I do read it.
------------------------
My initial email:
I am a Catholic and an attorney with a career only three years shorter than yours -- in fact, I'm a gradute of CUA Law School, although it was before your deanship. I have read with interest your writings explaining why your support of Senator Obama is consistent with Catholic pro-life teaching. I have to take issue with you in a few particulars:
1. In your October 31 article in the National Catholic Reporter, you have misinterpreted then-Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 memo as supporting your position. Yes, he does say that it is possible to vote for a politician who supports laws that ease access to abortion when there are proportionate reasons for doing so. You have disregarded the fact that "proportionate reasons" have a specific meaning in Catholic doctrine, and we do not get to define them. We are taught -- even in the Ratzinger memo -- that abortion and euthanasia are on an entirely different moral plane from all other issues; thus, that only abortion and euthanasia qualify as "proportionate" with each other. I urge that if you are going to use Catholic teaching to support your position, you understand what that teaching really is. It's quite remarkable that you find support in the Ratzinger memo, which is even stronger against your position that the USCCB "Faithful Citizenship" guide is.
2. As for your apparent claim that Obama's social policies will reduce the incidence of abortion, you don't acknowledge that your belief is wholly speculative. We all hope that it is so, but experience in other countries, such as those in Scandinavia, doesn't support the conclusion. What is certain, though, is that Obama has promised certain specific actions that will ease the restrictions on abortion -- signing the Freedom of Choice Act and a repeal of the Hyde Amendment, for example. These will directly result in more abortions. Balancing your speculation against the facts of Obama's position leads me to the opposite conclusion from yours.
3. For the same reason -- easing restrictions on abortion -- although it is true in the current legal environment that no president can really reduce abortion, it is equally clear that the combination of Democratic president and Democratic Congress can, and if Obama is to be believed, will, actually increase its availability.
You certainly have the right to vote the way you want to, but if believe there is support in Catholic doctrine for your position that a vote for Senator Obama is a pro-life vote, then I'm afraid you're quite wrong.
--------------------------------
Professor Kmiec's response:
Thank you for your thoughtful note. I am grateful, and I come to these matters prayerfully, as I know you do. Might you cite me to the materials where the Holy Father or the USCCB define proportionate reason to be limited to abortion or euthanasia? I am looking for an instance where a definition is given as opposed to the giving of a non-exclusive example which is how I believe both the then-Cardinal Ratzinger is best understood especially when compared to the non-negotiable/ intrinsic evil terminology in Faithful Citizenship which of course is shown by different example (e.g., abortion and racism).
I concede the speculative number of lives saved, but it is greater than zero which is what Roe-related litigation (which I do not oppose and which no President can stop) has delivered to date at least.
Will we ever see the Human Life Amendment again? Would it not be wonderful if the President of CUA, the Most Rev. David O'Connell, who is a true Catholic leader in America, and the Knights would launch a nationwide campaign? I'm betting the two of us would enlist.
All best, and in gratitude for your thoughts,
Doug
----------------------------------
My reply:
Thank you for your kind response. I suspect that you have received more than your share of hate email, and I trust you didn't take mine that way. And for what it's worth, I do believe you have not taken your position lightly, and I have little patience for those who accuse you of some nefarious intention.
And thank you for posing a different interpretation, which I had not heard before, of the Ratzinger memo as a non-exclusive example. I re-read it with that interpretation in mind and, although I can understand it, I don't agree with it. I interpret the memo as re-enforcing the idea that abortion and euthanasia are on a different moral level than any other grave sin. That makes very much sense to me as a moral matter: abortion is the deliberate termination of an innocent human life, as is euthanasia. None of the other grave sins, or intrinsic evils, has the same intent, although of course waging war almost certainly will have the same effect.
To clear up a possible misunderstanding: I do not say that only abortion or euthanasia can be a proportionate reason in the abstract; I believe that they are, in the moral sense, proportionate to each other, to the exclusion of other concerns. Unfortunately, I cannot point to any material in which either the Holy Father or any part of the Magisterium has defined "proportionate reasons." I have researched the issue as much as my limited time will allow, and theologians have interpreted the phrase differently. I can only say that having read and considered the varying interpretations, I agree with those who believe that only abortion and euthanasia are proportionate to (with?) each other.
I guess my position is that as to pro-life issues, I weigh the certainty of more abortions (due to removal of restrictions) against the speculation of fewer abortions and come to a different answer than you do. (But even having said all that, I'm not basing my vote on abortion policy in any case!) I do appreciate your posing it in the public square, and your courtesy in responding to my message.
 Doug Kmiec says he's Catholic November 3, 2008
3 out of 10 found this review helpful
Kmiec can claim to be Catholic; But in reality..
just because he makes this claim, it does not make it so!
To be truly Catholic, you need to practice what you allege!
He is talking out of two sides of his face at one time.
He cannot speak with any authority about Catholic theology and teaching!
His choices (which promotes taking innocent lives)cannot be rationally explained.. but can be rationally understood!
I would hope his reasons (for his sake) are out of ignorance; but more likely a pigheaded rejection to offset an inner knowing of guilt.
We cannot hide the `Truth'.. nor from it!
Archbishop Chaput Acting More Politician Than Theologian? November 3, 2008
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
opinion
Archibishop Chaput's comments on Barack Obama
By Steven Millies, from the Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 10/23/2008 05:40:36 PM MDT
I have met Archbishop Charles Chaput and, because I have experienced his warmth and generosity myself, I admire him.
However, I disagree with Archbishop Chaput when he calls Barack Obama the "most committed abortion rights candidate in 35 years," and when he says that prominent Catholics like Douglas Kmiec who support Obama do the Church a disservice, suffering from a delusion of "moral self-hypnosis."
There is an important difference between Archbishop Chaput and Professor Kmiec: one is a bishop and the other is a constitutional scholar. The difference is not insignificant.
For Catholics like Kmiec and me, Archbishop Chaput is a teacher of the faith who speaks with the moral authority of the Gospel.
That extraordinary competence reaches far into the lives of Catholic citizens to help us form our consciences, but it is not unlimited.
It does not give Archbishop Chaput or any other bishop a privileged understanding of the U.S. Constitution or the nuances of public policy.
Kmiec, a former Reagan Administration official and a law professor, has those competencies. He knows that political opposition to abortion cannot be binary in the way that moral opposition is.
Kmiec's moral opposition to abortion is the same as Archbishop Chaput's: it is an either/or question, and both of these men answer that question the same way. But political and policy opposition to abortion can take many forms.
Does it mean seeking the reversal of Roe v. Wade? Does it mean seeking an amendment to the Constitution? Does it mean supporting a network of social programs that can relieve the economic anxiety of having children? All of these--and other things--are meaningful ways to oppose abortion, and all express a Catholic point of view.
We may debate legitimately which would be the most effective opposition, but we know that no one candidate stands for all of them. This suggests that it is possible to vote in many ways and still hold moral opposition to abortion, as it suggests there is a distinction between our moral decisions and ways that we act on them.
Archbishop Chaput also has admonished a host of Catholic elected officials for making a distinction between their private convictions and their public responsibilities.
The Archbishop has said that Catholics like Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi are being disingenuous when they say that their moral opposition to abortion is not something they can render unto Caesar.
What someone like Professor Kmiec understands is that public officials take an oath to uphold a constitution whose meaning is not theirs to reinterpret or change. Roe, which abortion opponents like John Ashcroft and John Roberts both described as "settled law," is no more fit for public officials to ignore than Lemon v. Kurtzman, which established ground rules for the church/state relationship, the Brown decision, or any other.
Until the Supreme Court says else, our public officials swear to uphold a Constitution that protects abortion rights. Therefore, to be a Catholic public official is a high-wire act of conscience whether we discuss abortion or an innumerable range of other issues.
When Catholics do the business of the people, they agree to defend the preferences of non-Catholic citizens and a Constitution with no debt to the Gospel or the teachings of the Church.
Catholic politicians, as much as we Catholic citizens when we vote, must be pragmatic enough to recognize the good we can do, and hope for the chance to seek other goods in other ways or at other times. The alternative is not to participate in public life.
Recently, Archbishop Chaput quoted another bishop who said that this nation is "drenched in blood" because of abortion. Of course that is true.
We also are "drenched in blood" for countless other reasons. No nation ever has not been "drenched in blood." It is in the nature of nations, it is a fact of our human condition, and our faithful citizenship cannot change it.
That is no license to abandon our consciences, but it ought to be a useful guard on our expectations for what politics can achieve.
Any hope to live in a nation not implicated in death and suffering aims too high above what we should expect from the principalities and powers of this City of Man.
It says much about the goodness of Archbishop Chaput, the spiritual leader who thirsts for justice, that he holds such hopes.
Still, that the Archbishop seems shocked by the moral failures of his country underscores how, to be as shrewd as serpents when they engage the political arena, Catholics must keep firm watch on their hopes and listen to the voices of good men and women who understand political life, and who seek to practice their faith as much as public life will permit.
Pro-life voters (Catholic, and otherwise) should celebrate Sen. Obama's startling admission that the pro-choice movement has been wrong to avoid the moral dimension of abortion.
It is a sign the moral victory has been won, and that much might be achieved in an Obama Administration (far more than has been in the Bush Administration).
Neither Archbishop Chaput nor any other voice in the pro-life movement should keep silent or step to the sidelines.
Yet, just as the Archbishop enjoys deference on the moral question of abortion, it is time to recognize that the abortion debate is held in the realm of Caesar where pro-life Catholics like Professor Kmiec who support Sen. Obama bring an understanding to this debate that is needful and also deserves deference.
Steven P. Millies, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of political science at the University of South Carolina in Aiken.
"The last best hope" for the Nation and our Church October 26, 2008
3 out of 8 found this review helpful
"Can A Catholic support Him?" is a seminal work that is at the forefront of redefining the parameters of the public debate on abortion. It is equally as important a work that reflects a changing paradigm within the Catholic Church in the emergence of leadership that lay persons are demonstrating in the Church in the wake of the clergy sexual abuse crisis. The importance of this book for Catholics goes beyond the well honed arguments one would expect from a professor of Constitutional law and the thoughtful tone one would expect from a man of great faith and piety who loves his Church. Prof. Douglas W. Kmiec asks the "the big question about Barack Obama" at a time in the life of the Church when the institutional Church has never been more divided on this issue.
As a cradle Catholic who was formerly the Dean of the Catholic University of America Law School and a Republican who served two Republican Presidents, Prof. Kmiec has been conventionally viewed as providing tremendous value for the Obama campaign. What has not received as much attention is the leadership he provides for the "people in the pews" in the face of intense public scrutiny starting with the anguish of being publicly denied communion by a priest in his own parish for endorsing Senator Obama for President, subsequently from Republican Faith Partisans - or RFP's as he refers to them - and most recently from "maverick" bishops who have called his Catholicism into question. In the face of this he continues to speak with compassion and courage in the public square, as he does here in this remarkable work, and debunks the myth you can't be a good Catholic and a Democrat.
In Chapter 19 of the book, it becomes clear that Kmiec did not anticipate the iceberg that lay before him in response to his endorsement of Obama and subsequently this work. In this book he takes on the mantle of being a spokesperson, not only for the Obama campaign, but also for lay Catholics seeking to have an "adult conversation" about the most divisive issue in our country and our Church, at a time when both are particularly in need of healing. His advocacy of practical solutions to reduce abortions through social programs and the leadership of Senator Obama provide a basis for common ground solutions and move the debate to focusing on results beyond rhetoric.
In presenting his case for how Senator Obama represents core values of the social gospel for Catholics and all people of goodwill, Prof. Kmiec presents the "big idea" that Obama is really the more pro-life candidate in the face of the traditional arguments and strategies that the institutional Church proclaim cannot be questioned. In doing so, I am reminded of the inspiration of the Second Vatican council whose work is still taking root in the Church despite efforts of some to overturn it. "They [the laity] are, by [reason of] knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church." (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 37)
Prof. Doug Kmiec represents the "Change We Can We Believe In" within our nation and within the changing framework of the Roman Catholic Church in America, making a little more room for the Holy Spirit to be heard through the prayerful voices of lay Catholics. While he makes the case that Senator Obama is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "the last best hope" for out country, I suggest that Catholics - lay, clergy and religious - like Doug Kmiec are the last best hope for our Church and our nation.
|
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
